On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> struct pthread_mutex_t_ {
>
> /* ... */
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
>
> __copy_ctor(const pthread_mutex_t_&) {
> throw "Don't do this!";
> }
>
> #endif
>
> };
> typedef struct pthread_mutex_t_ pthread_mutex_t;
I do not know where it is implemented, it is not on my system, this way
but I think what I did should be perfectly legal as I am merely initializing
the class. In fact having ANY constructor will prevent the statement
"pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER" from working on my
system and probably others which IS legal. This is because if you have ANY
contractor defined and PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER is a macro which uses the
"{...}" form you will get something like this "...must be initialized by
constructor, not by `{...}'.
I have changed the definition to:
#ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY
static const pthread_mutex_t MUTEX_INIT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
#endif
class Mutex {
pthread_mutex_t l_;
private:
Mutex(const Mutex &);
void operator=(const Mutex &);
public:
#ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY
Mutex() : l_(MUTEX_INIT) {}
#else
Mutex() {pthread_mutex_init(&l_, 0);}
~Mutex() {pthread_mutex_destroy($l_);}
#endif
void lock() {pthread_mutex_lock(&l_);}
void unlock() {pthread_mutex_unlock(&l_);}
};
I hope your happy now. So stupid systems that have pthread_mutex_t
defined that way will work.
Anyway. My locking primitives are designed to be on top of any locking
mechanism, so this is a minor issue.
---
http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
