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 12:45:40

Am 23.03.2011 17:35, schrieb Vicente BOTET:
>
>
>> Message du 23/03/11 14:51
>> De : "Oliver Kowalke"
>> A : boost_at_[hidden]
>> Copie à :
>> Objet : Re: [boost] [context review] Review - alternative version available
>>
>> Hello Vicente,
>>
>>> I would like to see a good rationale
>>> explaining the advantages of letting Boost.Context manage them. In any case
>>> the name asm_impl and native_impl are not adapted. I let you make some better
>>> suggestions than the current ones.
>> What about dropping context<  stack, impl>  in favour of fast_context<  stack>  and native_context<  stack>  (nastive_context<>  doesn't describe it well - do you have a better idea?).
>> The user has the opertunity to choos which context he wants to use.
> Hi,
>
> I'm still looking for the use case. What could make a user that has the possibility to get a fast context switch 13x faster to prefers to use the low context provided using ucontext?
>

You suggest that context<> should use fcontext if available and native 
OS facility otherwise?! If the other people agree I'll implement it.
Maybe I should remove the stack template argument so that context onnly 
supports protected_stack (for security reasons -> overwriting memoryof 
the app if stacksize is too small)?

best regards,
Oliver