20 Sep
2006
20 Sep
'06
2:16 p.m.
Peter Dimov wrote:
Pavel Syomin wrote:
This is solve my problems, but why there is nothing about spurious wakeup in boost documentation?...
The older documentation
http://web.archive.org/web/20041024220516/boost.org/libs/thread/doc/conditio...
does have a few sentences that mention spurious wakeups; I've no idea how they got lost. I'll CC: the dev list.
The docu might tell something not only about spurious wakeups but also about the fact that return of timedout status doesn't preclude consumption of a signal issued concurrently (note that thread cancel delivery does preclude it). Well, the best fix is simply incorporate by reference the standard semantics as defined in (most current edition) ISO/IEC 9945. regards, alexander.