Le 05/09/12 10:33, Klaim - Joël Lamotte a écrit :
I attach the whole email exchange to this email, tell me if leak logs are necessary too.
The last version of my test is at the end of the email (first program). Basically, the leak appear only when using std::async() in combination of boost::thread_specific_ptr : - using exclusively boost threading libraries (both with dynamic and static linking) result in no leak - using exclusively std threading libraries but not std::async() result in no leak - using std::async() result in a leak
The second test program shows that using Intel Threading Building Blocks, I get leaks only if : - I use std::async() in combination with boost::thread_specific_ptr, as before (I mean I use tbb without a leak, then I add a std::async() call to the same task function and there is a leak) - I don't use std::async() but I don't manage the lifetime of tbb task scheduler
We think the threads spawned by both tbb (that is supposed to be a superset of ppl) and std::async() (that is supposed to use ppl/concrt task scheduler) are not ended yet when the program reach the end of main (which seems logical as the task scheduler is then managed as a static global),
Shouldn't the future destructor synchronize with the hidden thread used by std::async()? Best, Vicente