Subject: Re: [boost] boost.lockfree update
From: Christian Holmquist (c.holmquist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-23 14:40:54
On 23 July 2010 06:24, Tim Blechmann <tim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> hi all,
> i've did some updates to boost.lockfree the biggest difference to earlier
> snapshots is, that it includes a fixed-size single-producer/single-consumer
> besides, the documentation is based on doxygen now. snapshots are available
> from , docs from  and my git repository can be found at  and
> from ...
This looks like a really useful addition to boost, hope you'll push it for
review at some point.
Some quick feedback on the fifo class
"The fifo class provides a multi-writer/multi-reader fifo, enqueueing and
dequeueing is lockfree, construction/destruction has to be synchronized"
What does it mean that construction/destruction has to be synchronized? Both
these functions can only be called once.
I would prefer having the default constructor to not allocate any memory at
all. Why not expose a reserve() member function instead?
bool enqueue(T const & t);
Shouldn't this function throw an exception if t cannot be enqueued?
Can the name be changed to push_back() instead, to mimic other
std::containers? One may then, for instance, use your class with
void push_back(const T&) // Throws...
bool dequeue (T * ret)
I think T should be taken by reference instead of pointer:
bool empty(void) //warning Not thread-safe
I think this function should be removed from public interface if it cannot
be implemented in a thread safe manner.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk