Re: [boost] [context review] Review - alternative version available

Subject: Re: [boost] [context review] Review - alternative version available
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-23 02:58:53

> > The problem is that the user can't choose between a boost::context<> 
> > version which can deal with UNIX signals (as ucontext functions do) or a
> > fast assembler implementation (fcontext) if UNIX signals are out of 
> > scope/irrelevant /because handled in another place/thread - what ever).
> 
> Well, I believe that unix signals should be handled in a single place, but
> I'm not an expert in this domain. I would like to see a good rationale
> explaining the advantages of letting Boost.Context manage them.

The UNIX signals are not handled/managed by boost.context. In the case of ucontext (native_impl) the thread which runs boost.context can unblock and handle UNIX signals. For instance a platform which doesn't support kernel threads but has UNIX signal handling must handle signals in the same thread.

In the other case (fcontext == asm_impl) the thread must block all UNIX signals.

> In any case the name asm_impl and native_impl are not adapted. I let you > make some better suggestions than the current ones.

Well you know finding decriptive names for classes is not so easy (at least for me) - do you have a suggestion?

regards,
Oliver
-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de