Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-10 17:25:37

On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:25:57 -0700
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jeremy_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 08/30/2010 11:59 AM, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> > [snip]
> > I checked now why I even had to add -lpthread if it wasn't required
> > in earlier Boost.Process drafts: The new status class uses a worker
> > thread to support asynchronous I/O. So yes, threading=multi is the
> > natural choice. ;) Updated in SVN and in the ZIP file.
> The use of a worker thread seems like an unfortunate additional
> burden. I don't know about the Windows implementation, but on Linux
> it seems in principle it should be possible to handle it via a
> SIGCHLD handler.

Callback would need to be async-signal-safe. If a user worries about
performance so much, she could set up signal handler itself.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at