Nicolas Fleury wrote:
Thx for the link, but I don't get it. How is Microsoft implementation
of semaphore is showing that all implementations of semaphore should be
avoided?
It is showing that semas (e.g. bin-semas aka "auto-reset events") are really error-prone. Their implementation of counting semaphore
How?
using a mutex (well, they actually use a totally brain-damaged "dying spinlock") plus a binary semaphore is buggy (it contains erroneous synchronization). Now... you might to follow this link:
Why buggy?
"Pthreads win32 is just trying to be a general pupose condition variable as defined by the pthreads standard, suitable for any and all threads to go around calling pthread_cond_wait() and pthread_cond_signal() on. As a consequence the implementation contains several mutexes, semaphores etc, and a flow of control that will make your brains dribble out of your ears if you stare at the code too long (I have the stains on my collar to prove it
;-). Such are the joys of implementing condition variables using the Win32 synchronization primitives!"
But what's the relation between Microsoft implementation of semaphore, pthread win32 implementation of condition and the error-proness of semaphores versus mutexes/conditions in general?
Is it simply a mather of preference and style, or is there a simple case to show why semaphores are error-prone instead of mutexes/conditions?
Regards. Nicolas Fleury
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
