Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] Can Boost.Thread use Boost.Atomic without falling on a compatibility issue?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-12 06:08:10

Le 12/01/13 11:51, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
> On Saturday 12 January 2013 11:37:30 Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Hi,
>> in order to fix this issue,
>> : "boost::call_once() is unreliable on some platforms", I would like to
>> use Boost.Atomic as suggested on the ticket. As Boost.Atomic is not a
>> header-only library the user would need to link with boost_atomic.
>> Is this an acceptable change? I'm requesting this as recently there were
>> some people reactive to some changes in Boost.Thread. Would this be
>> considered an compatibility issue?
>> If yes should the fix for the call_once issue be included if the user
>> request it using conditional compilation or even go on a separated
>> version of Boost.Thread?
> I think people were mostly concerned with functionality changes of
> Boost.Thread while the suggested switch to Boost.Atomic seems more of an
> implementation issue. IMHO, the switch to Boost.Atomic is a good idea; we
> should localize the atomic code in one place.
> Anyway, can Boost.Thread be modified in such a way so that Boost.Atomic use is
> not exposed to the user? E.g. so that call_once invokes a compiled function
> implemented within Boost.Thread library that uses Boost.Atomic to modify the
> once flag.
yes, this will be great. I don't know Boost.Atomic details to try to do
this. Andrey do you mind to provide a patch that doesn't needs to link
with boost_atomic?

Or, can Boost.Atomic be header-only?


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