Stefan Seefeld wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > It is showing that semas (e.g. bin-semas aka "auto-reset events") > > are really error-prone. > > you seem to equate microsoft's implementation of semaphores with > the concept of semaphores (which is what I'd like to get feedback on).
No. I'm talking about the erroneous USE of a binary semaphore in the Microsoft implementation of "metered section" silliness (which, "conceptually" is nothing but a counting semaphore). > > If all that is wrong is that microsoft does a crappy job at implementing > them, the response could be to provide a special implementation using > mutexes and cv's *for the MS platforms*, and using native > implementations when possible. You don't need semaphores; neither binary nor counting semas are needed for *threading*. Use mutexes for locking and condvars for waiting. Modern semas are meant for things that need either async- signal-safe "unlock" operation or memory isolation (no shared mem). Threading has really nothing to do with that. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
