Boost Users :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost interprocess named mutexes
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 03:13:29

Next message: Kevin Martin: "Re: [Boost-users] [random] Singleton engine"
Previous message: alfC: "[Boost-users] [mpl, units] rational and static_rational"
In reply to: Mike Spertus: "Re: [Boost-users] Boost interprocess named mutexes"

Mike Spertus escribió:

> Sorry, I misread that doc page. You are of course correct. What do you
> think of my suggestion to use a Windows mutex to back a boost
> interprocess named mutex? Since "abandoned Windows mutexes" are
> automatically released by Windows, we see substantially fewer hangs when
> we use Windows mutexes.

Windows named mutexes have reference-counted semantics, so they
disappear when the last attached process dies, so they are not ompatible
with POSIX lifetime semantics.

Best,

Ion

Next message: Kevin Martin: "Re: [Boost-users] [random] Singleton engine"
Previous message: alfC: "[Boost-users] [mpl, units] rational and static_rational"
In reply to: Mike Spertus: "Re: [Boost-users] Boost interprocess named mutexes"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net