Re: [boost] [context] Implementation comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [context] Implementation comments
From: Oliver Kowalke (k-oli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-19 06:58:06

so what? is it appropriate that boost::context has move semantics or not?
what I tried to explain is, that boost::context can be tracked as a resource as boost::thread.

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:40:20 +0100
> Von: Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]>
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Betreff: Re: [boost] [context] Implementation comments

> >>> Why is boost::thread implemented with move-semantics?
> 
> >> Boost.Context is much more low level than Boost.Thread.
> > why? thread and context are resources - I don't see context more low
> > level than thread
> 
> Hold on. I understand that that you are saying that context is the same
> level as thread. On the other hand in the reply to my question (about
> using
> boost::function) you said
> 
> > boost.context is intended to be the basis of such things like coroutines
> > (see boost.coroutine) and fibers (see boost.fiber).
> 
> Which somehow implied that Context is lower-level than Coroutine or Fiber.
> If you really treat Context the same level as Thread, I would suggest
> passing function<void()> as trampoline function. If you can afford using
> pimpl, you can easily change function<void()> to void(*)(void*) and void*
> parameters:
> 
>   void call( void* arg) {
>     auto ptr = static_cast< function<void()>* >( arg );
>     ptr->operator();
>   }
> 
>   function<void()> trampoline = ...;
>   context_impl( call, &trampoline );
> 
> Using function<void()> makes it easier to understand for thread users and
> makes the interface similar to thread, task, etc...
> 
> Regards,
> &rzej
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- 
GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit 
gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl