Subject: Re: [boost] new library boost.fiber in vault
From: Oliver Kowalke (k-oli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 14:02:26
Edd Dawson wrote:
> Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>> Boost.Fiber is modeled after the interface of Boost.Thread and this
>> API is at least for me more convenient than co-routines
>> (that means I'm more familiar with the usage of threads) and
>> Boost.Fiber was written for support of Boost.Task (non-blocking
>> tasks inside the thread-pool).
>> I don't think that the libs should be merged.
> Code that uses fibers can be somewhat gnarly by necessity, especially
> when exception handling and multiple platforms are thrown in to the mix.
> For example, I found that MinGW GCC's older SJLJ mechanism is
> particularly problematic
> though I suspect you're far more qualified to work around that than I,
> if you haven't already.
thx for the hint. I know that fibers are problematic - even on Windows
fibers are not supported by the CLR/.NET stuff (because hitting some
concepts). maybe I should collect the DONTs in the docu.
> Anyway, should boost really have two lots of code for this stuff? In
> other words, would it not be beneficial if one library was written in
> terms of the other?
maybe! I didn't looked into coroutine much because I needed another
> Kind regards,
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk