Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: [atomic] review results
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 13:51:06
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 09:22:29 Helge Bahmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2011 04:42:38 Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Another option that I have considered would be "piggy-backing" the spinlock
> pool into Boost.Thread -- the idea is that an application is either
> single-threaded, or if it is multi-threaded it is expected to link with
> Boost.Thread (even if nothing from Boost.Thread is used indeed, yes makes me
> feel uneasy as well).
I think this might be a good idea. Boost.Thread usage in multi-threaded apps
is quite expected.
> In that case I could play "weak reference" tricks such that the pool is used
> when linked in, and for single-threaded applications no mutual exclusion is
> done and they work just fine nevertheless.
> Too whacky? Maybe piggy-backing into Boost.Thread without weak reference
> tricks might also be something to consider?
I didn't really understand the trick, but it seems odd to use atomic<> in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk