Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] [rfc] patch to change condition_variable and mutex error checks
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-30 18:21:17

Le 30/11/11 23:05, Brett Lentz a écrit :
> Hash: SHA1
> On 11/30/2011 04:51 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Brett Lentz wrote:
>>> Patch is attached.
>>> I'd like to get some comments about this patch. Does it seem
>>> reasonable enough to accept? Is there a better way to handle it?
>>> BOOST_VERIFY aborts on EINTR, but EINTR is usually not fatal, it
>>> just means you need to try later.
>> You've attached the wrong patch. Anyway, POSIX specifically
>> forbids pthread functions from returning EINTR.
I wasn't aware of this.
> DOH! Correct patch attached here.
> Posix may forbid it, but that doesn't necessarily stop a broken
> implementation from doing it. Like the original e-mail said, this was
> a result of an actual customer's experience in an actual production
> situation.
I agree that this should be managed by Boost.Thread as other
workarounds. As many others we have been forced to use this idiom since
a long time. Even if the patch is not too much time consuming it could
use conditional compilation and be included only on bad posix
> While I'd like to see the patch accepted, it would be equally valid to
> just say that it's not a problem boost should be solving, and that I
> need to file a bug with the OS vendor that they shouldn't be violating
> POSIX like this. ;-)

Yes, please.


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