on Mon Aug 27 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
until further notice, no other object in the program has executed __l1.lock(), or __l1.try_lock() (or any of the other functions which a can put a mutex into a exclusive locked state) without having already executed __l1.unlock().
It sounds like you're saying that it's legit for some "other object in the program" to call __l1.unlock() while __u1 is uniquely holding __l1's lock state. Are you really saying that?
No. I'm saying __u1 owns the exclusively locked state of __l1. What that ownership means is __l1's business.
What was all that about executing __l1.unlock(), then? Should I just ignore it? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com