Subject: Re: [boost] Synchronization (RE: [compute] review)
From: Gruenke,Matt (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-31 05:00:00
I just wanted to remind anyone following this that, if Kyle adopts #2 (embedding synchronization or refcounting in device memory containers), these waits/guards/guarantees/etc. wouldn't be of interest to the majority of users. So, I think it's a lot of debate over what's essentially a corner case. And event guarantees get the job done, while anything else is just easier to use (and misuse).
I hope you don't feel that's unfair, Thomas.
This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk