Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] new version in vault
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-01 08:57:34
Am Tuesday 01 December 2009 13:18:19 schrieb Helge Bahmann:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Stefan Strasser wrote:
> > 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?
> There must be a fallback implementation if the processor cannot perform an
> operation atomically -- and the template argument to atomic<> may for
> example be a double-word which not every processor can access atomically.
that's undisputed. my question was referring to a hashed lock library being a
good addition to boost.
why would you want to use hashed mutexes when you can implement a mutex in the
size of a reference into a mutex table?
if you don't use pthreads mutexes, but a mutex that doesn't waste memory.