Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] new version in vault
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-01 07:13:35
Am Tuesday 01 December 2009 11:05:26 schrieb Helge Bahmann:
> > A hashed lock library would be welcome here, I'm sure.
> Yes, this would be a really helpful addition to Boost.Thread --
> implementing fallback for atomic operations is just not feasible without.
could you explain this please?
I use something like that myself, as a workaround, but I don't see how that is
a desired solution.
why would you hash to access something that should be one word in size?
in makes sense if you try to avoid the pthread mutex memory overhead, but if
you put effort into it wouldn't it make more sense to replicate exactly what
pthreads does inside boost and avoid the overhead and the hashing?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk