On 2017-02-04 19:41-0800 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> 1. Make the current one-semaphore approach work with unnamed
> semaphores. The last commit put essentially all the infrastructure in
> place to support this further change so this change should be a simple
> matter of replacing (for this case) the ca
@everybody (other than Phil who has already been most helpful):
I would really appreciate some timely help with my C++ questions.
Although, my (fairly elementary) C++ question below was initially
directed to Phil because he has been kind enough to answer such
questions from me before, if you have
Hi Alan
Your ears must be burning! (not sure if you have that phrase
stateside?) I was just looking through the code and trying to
understand the issue. then when I came back to reply I found another
email :-)
As it stands I don't see in your source code where you have called
m_unamed_semaphore_Me
On 2017-02-05 21:16- Phil Rosenberg wrote:
[...]
> As it stands I don't see in your source code where you have called
> m_unamed_semaphore_MemoryMap.create( );
>
> I think what is happening is that you construct your PLnamedMutex
> which constructs all the member variables using their default
Hi Alan
I'm not sure how exactly the two classes interact, but if the parameters for
the constructor will be the same every time you can pass them in as constant
values. I.e, I presume the size will be the same each time and you could use a
static member to hold a name that you increment after e
