Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] countdown_latch
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-12 20:46:08

On May 12, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 5/12/2013 6:49 AM, Rob Stewart wrote:
>> On May 11, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Gaetano Mendola <mendola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2013 12.54, Rob Stewart wrote:
>>>> I'd prefer to create a barrier class and, in your example, it would release waiting threads when two are blocked behind it. IOW, you'd create a barrier for two threads and both thread_proc() and the constructor would wait() on the barrier. Once both threads have called wait(), they are both released. (I plan to present that at C++ Now, this year.)
>>> As said that's create a not needed "wait" on the thread body, what the OP (and me for the matter) needs is that *only* thread creator is blocked waiting for the threads to arrive at certain point of the execution.
>> It seems to me that wait is inconsequential relative to the cost of creating a thread. If this were part of the thread creation process, an option to thread's constructor, say, there would be some convenience, but the performance difference doesn't seem worthwhile. Have I missed something?
> The created thread is already executing when it gets to the latch. Why would you want to introduce synchronization, and potentially block the thread, where none is needed?

Is the latch to just cause the creator to block until the created thread begins, or is it more general purpose to cause a number of threads to wait until they are all ready? I thought it was the latter and, if so, how can it be done without synchronization? I must still be missing something.


(Sent from my portable computation engine)

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