On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:18 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > > * Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/08 07:51]: > > > So my suggestion: if boost::time solves your problem on > > > windows then do > > > a new sys/boost/Time.cpp impl using boost::time, so no > > > impact on other code. > > That's essentially the path I've taken... But the first time a timed > condition wait was tried, boost threw an out-of-range time exception. > > The Windows Mutex, Condition, etc. are boost-based. So I guess it > could be moved to sys/boost.
At this point I think the pthreads code is well tested and is very portable to many platforms - I would be against replacing it with a boost implementation. Especially as on these same platforms the boost implementation will just sit on top of the pthreads implementation anyway (in most cases). Also pthreads is well documented (in books even), and boost is still subject to change. If these things make it into the C++ standard lib as has been threatened then I'll argue strongly to use that, but I don't see any value in changing from pthread to boost for those platforms that are sufficiently posix. > > > That's been working well for me. I've been playing around > > with making a boost > > "port" in sys/boost since I'll eventually need an OSX client > > too and I figured > > it was easiest to let boost handle as much of the native code > > as possible. If I'm not mistaken OSX, being unix essentially, will already have pthreads. Andrew
