From: Kimon Hoffmann (Kimon.Hoffmann_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-20 12:09:24
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Quoting Anteru <newsgroups_at_[hidden]>:
>> Well, I still have problems with the conditions, even with the latest
> Yes, the win32 spurious-wake-prevention code is faulty. The one-line
> fix I originally suggested is better in that it does actually work, at
> the expense of more spurious wakes.
> I'm working on a new spurious-wake-prevention mechanism. I'm really
> frustrated that this hasn't come to light until now.
Just FYI, last Thursday we encountered a similar/the same problem with
the new threading code and filed a Trac ticket. The ticket number is #1834.
For now we have resorted to switching back to Boost 1.34.1 but since
Boost 1.35.0 includes a few important fixes to other libraries it would
be really great if a fix for this would make it into 1.35.1.
One question about the spurious-wake-prevention: Is the absence of
spurious wakes one of the guarantees made by the threading library