Stefan Strasser-2 wrote:
Am Monday 30 November 2009 01:21:42 schrieb Vicente Botet Escriba:
For the mutexes is another history. Have you tried to make a mutex class that works for process, threads and fibers? If you did, I'm interested in seen how you have reached that.
no I have not, but if you look at...
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/fiber/libs/fiber/src/mutex.cpp
...Oliver almost has.
slightly changed to:
namespace sync{
template<class Suspend> struct basic_cas_mutex{ void lock(){ while(true){ uint32_t expected = 0; if ( detail::atomic_compare_exchange_strong( & state_, & expected, 1) ) break; else Suspend()(); } } ... ... };
<snip>
Hi, I like your sync::basic_cas_mutex class template, how it can be used on a thread or fiber context or even to build a spin lock. Anyway you will have two classes fiber::mutex and thread::mutex with a common implementation. Can sync::basic_cas_mutex be used to protect inter-process concurrent access? My concern was that we can and should use the same boost::lock_guard and boost::unique_lock even when we have several implementations of Lockables. In addition, I don't think that we can say sync::basic_cas_mutex<thread::suspend> could be equivalent to boost:mutex as the following let think.
#if CAS supported on platform typedef sync::basic_cas_mutex<suspend> mutex; #else typedef sync::native_mutex mutex; #endif
Both are useful on different context and should be provided separately. Up to the user to choose the one adapted to its context. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-fiber--new-version-in-vault-tp26557494p26575154.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.