Re: [Boost-users] Semaphore and barriers for boost-threads?

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-16 19:58:21

I argued vociferously for semaphore and lost.  Apparently they seem to 
think that mutex is a simpler function than semaphore (and they consider it 
"safer").
I have no idea what POSIX calls it, but semaphore is  wait and signal (at 
least according to the man who invented them... well he called them P and V)

At Monday 2004-02-16 15:18, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am new to Boost, and like what I see.
>I hope to be able to use more Boost libraries
>in the C++ projects that I work on.
>
>Would it be a good thing to add semaphore and barrier
>classes to Boost Threads?  For semaphores, having
>something analogous to the POSIX functions
>sem_wait() and sem_post()
>would be nice.
>
>For barriers, having something analogous to
>pthread_barrier_wait() would be nice.
>
>It is not very hard to roll your own versions
>of these primitives using boost::condition
>and boost::mutex classes, but it would
>be nice to have them in a library.
>
>Any opinions?
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Craig Rodrigues
>http://crodrigues.org
>rodrigc_at_[hidden]
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-users mailing list
>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"