[thread] locks.hpp double declaration of unique_lock(unique_lock&& other)
Hi in lines 248-255 of the file boost/thread/locks.hpp we found the unique_lock(unique_lock&& other) declaration twice one withoth explicit and defined and the other with explicit an undefined. #ifdef BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS unique_lock(unique_lock&& other): m(other.m),is_locked(other.is_locked) { other.is_locked=false; other.m=0; } explicit unique_lock(upgrade_lock<Mutex>&& other); Could you say me why this is nesded? _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá
"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> writes:
Hi in lines 248-255 of the file boost/thread/locks.hpp we found the unique_lock(unique_lock&& other) declaration twice one withoth explicit and defined and the other with explicit an undefined.
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS unique_lock(unique_lock&& other): m(other.m),is_locked(other.is_locked) { other.is_locked=false; other.m=0; } explicit unique_lock(upgrade_lock<Mutex>&& other);
Could you say me why this is nesded?
It's a typo. Anthony -- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 21 January 2009 12:06 pm, vicente.botet wrote:
Hi in lines 248-255 of the file boost/thread/locks.hpp we found the unique_lock(unique_lock&& other) declaration twice one withoth explicit and defined and the other with explicit an undefined.
FWIW, the declarations are different: the second takes an upgrade_lock, not a unique_lock.
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS unique_lock(unique_lock&& other): m(other.m),is_locked(other.is_locked) { other.is_locked=false; other.m=0; } explicit unique_lock(upgrade_lock<Mutex>&& other);
Could you say me why this is nesded? _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJd2be5vihyNWuA4URAlLKAJ0bQe5cCCdP50N8wb09AbyHMR0/RgCg6NWR 6rOZWbQF6oIcEdgLeu2v85k= =qZP8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
:( Sorry, Vicente ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Mori Hess" <frank.hess@nist.gov> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] locks.hpp double declaration ofunique_lock(unique_lock&& other) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 21 January 2009 12:06 pm, vicente.botet wrote:
Hi in lines 248-255 of the file boost/thread/locks.hpp we found the unique_lock(unique_lock&& other) declaration twice one withoth explicit and defined and the other with explicit an undefined.
FWIW, the declarations are different: the second takes an upgrade_lock, not a unique_lock.
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS unique_lock(unique_lock&& other): m(other.m),is_locked(other.is_locked) { other.is_locked=false; other.m=0; } explicit unique_lock(upgrade_lock<Mutex>&& other);
Could you say me why this is nesded? _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJd2be5vihyNWuA4URAlLKAJ0bQe5cCCdP50N8wb09AbyHMR0/RgCg6NWR 6rOZWbQF6oIcEdgLeu2v85k= =qZP8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (3)
-
Anthony Williams -
Frank Mori Hess -
vicente.botet