Jeff Garland <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
I'm trying to update trunk to be have more of the C++0x interface at the moment. I've already integrated call_once (though I forgot only MSVC has _ReadWriteBarrier, and I haven't done the variadic arguments yet), and I'm currently working on the mutexes. I'm keen to get everything updated as much as possible before the 1.35 cutoff. I've got a reasonably up-to-date Windows implementation to use as a basis, and I've been working through the POSIX stuff.
Also, even though it's been punted to TR2, I want to get the read-write mutex back in --- I have a new implementation, and it's been missing since 1.32, so it would be good to get it back in the relese.
Ok, that sounds good, although are you going to maintain a 'classic' interface for existing users? Given the changes in the interface going straight from the current boost.thread to 0x interfaces would require some client rework. One thought would be to put the new stuff in namespace c++0x or std?
Well, I've left the boost::mutex::scoped_lock typedefs in for now, even though they're just typedefs to boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>. The constructor parameters have changed in line with the C++0X proposal, though. I've just added a backwards-compatibility overload for call_once (the order of args has changed).
I have a draft implementation of the date-time types you need -- I think Howard has been distributing that as well -- it needs some update because we made some name changes. I don't know that I want to incorporate directly into Boost date-time just yet, so maybe we want to put it in thread for now? Anyway, I'll contact you off-list and so we can figure out the details.
boost/thread/thread_time.hpp contains a minimal date-time interface for thread (based on boost::datetime). This seems to be sufficient --- is it not?
One other thing I forgot about was the atomics stuff -- that was voted in as is. Is anyone working on a Boost implementation of that stuff? I know there is some of this floating around in shared ptr or something.
I have some partial implementations --- I was waiting to see what the final outcome was before trying to keep up to date. I know Peter Dimov had a more complete implementation, but I don't know whether it's up to date. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL