Re: [Boost-users] [thread] synchronized_value: value and move semantics

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [thread] synchronized_value: value and move semantics
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-08 13:35:48

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> No. synchronized_value doesn't takes in account shared mutexes. Please
> create a ticket if you find the feature useful.

I'm not sure yet because I'm not in a position to check if there would be a
performance impact in my use cases by replacing mutexes (as shown in the
example)
by shared mutexes and associated locks. I suspect that there will be tens
of concurrent info() calls while m_info is modified, but I don't know
if it's worth using a shared_mutex for such number of accesses.
I will have to measure before getting back to this point.

A bit of bikesheding: I like synched<T> as a shortcut name (but I don't
think that's valid english).

Joel Lamotte