You are right. I will change it to use scoped lock. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Bjorn Reese <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/21/2015 04:44 PM, Doron Somech wrote: > > > (https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/src/mailbox_safe.hpp) have > > I had a quick look at this class... > > The workaround in the destructor is not thread-safe. Another thread > may enter and wait between the sync->unlock() and the end of the > destructor scope. You need to add a state variable to prevent this > from happening. > > Furthermore, if another thread is waiting on the condition variable, > then the mutex is unlocked while it is waiting. You need to > notify (broadcast) the condition variable to wake up the other thread > and get it out of the class. You will most likely need to to add a > reference count to keep track of how many pending threads are waiting > in order to know when it is safe to exit the destructor. > > The use of sync->lock() and sync->unlock() is not exception safe. I > suggest that you use a scoped lock instead of the explicit calls. Read > this for inspiration: > > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/unique_lock > > The code does not handle spurious wakeups from the condition variable. > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
