8 Jun
2013
8 Jun
'13
5:35 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba < vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> 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