Sorry to reply to my own post, but I found a solution, though it requires a
code change to boost:
struct all_futures_lock
{
unsigned count;
boost::scoped_arrayboost::mutex > locks;
all_futures_lock(std::vector& futures):
count(static_cast<unsigned>(futures.size())),locks(new
boost::unique_lockboost::mutex[count])
{
for(unsigned i=0;istd::ptrdiff_t(i)]=boost::unique_lockboost::mutex(futures[i].future->mutex);
}
}
void lock()
{
boost::lock(locks.get(),locks.get()+count);
}
void unlock()
{
for(unsigned i=0;istd::ptrdiff_t(i)].unlock();
}
}
};
Note the 3 static casts, the first is to avoid a warning, and the second two
are to explicitly convert the unsigned variable to std::ptrdiff_t.
VS 8.0 file "Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\crtdefs.h" line 516
defines ptrdiff_t as being "_w64 int" type.
Thus, the T& scoped_array<T>::operator[](std::ptrdiff_t i) const function
has an argument mismatch with unsigned. I realize that unsigned should
convert to int just fine, so I'm not sure if this is a compiler issue or
not.
First Question: Is there anyone with a bit more experience on implicit
conversions who can shed some light on whether or not the unsigned should be
implictly converted to int, or whether a default function should be matched?
Other question, is where is this *other* function coming from? Looking
through the preprocessed file, I cannot find any other places where there is
a operator[] being used on a scoped_array of any type.
Second Question: Is is safe for me to change this header file, and build
against it, while linking against the libraries which were built without
this change? If not, can anyone suggest a better way to achieve this without
having to modify the boost header?
Thanks!
-RD
