Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [interprocess] More robust message_queue and interprocess_condition?
From: Ross MacGregor (gordonrossmacgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-26 15:41:39

kopo <kopinskc <at>> writes:
> Was this ever resolved? Are there any plans on resolving this in future
> versions?

Not that I am aware, I think many assumed it was too difficult to fix.
But I have a proposed solution to which I am trying to generate some
feedback. I am using the "Solution 1" modification to the library myself.
For me, introducing a message_queue timeout was a far better than having
the interprocess library deadlock.

> I am having the exact same issue.
> Are there any non-invasive solutions? Even if it means a possible lose of
> data?

Are you using message_queue or interprocess_condition? I don't know
what you mean by "non-invasive". The only solutions outside of a
library fix are:
 1) Monitor your thread for a deadlock and kill it if it is and cleanup.
 2) Ensure your processes are never terminated.

I think #2 is how the library is meant to be used, but IMHO this is not
a requirement most real world applications can satisfy.

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