On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > I have changed the definition to: > > > > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY > ^^^^^^^ > > > static const pthread_mutex_t MUTEX_INIT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; > > Uhmm. What does your "fast destruction" do? Well, looking at the code > you've posted, it does nothing... and that's the "fastest" way to leak.
It depends on the implementation. On some, including linux, there is nothing to free. That's why I call it FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY. Please stop nick picking, it is not that important. What I had worked on my implementation. The Mutex class is just an example, I expect it to be substituted with a boost lock class. Do you even care about the rest of my code, or does this one "sin" make the rest of my code invalid? (Sorry I had to get it out, I really hate when people who pick apart insignificant details and ignore the rest.) --- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
