s/comdition/condition/ On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Rodgers <rodg...@twrodgers.com> wrote:
> Which all brings us to my next question - > > Can we just move on to -std=c++11 for future libzmq versions? The big 3 > compilers (well mostly, Microsoft still presents a few issues) support > C++11 at this point. > > Many of the issues below would just 'go away' with the use of std::mutex, > std::unique_lock, and std::comdition_variable. > > > On Saturday, February 21, 2015, Bjorn Reese <bre...@mail1.stofanet.dk> > 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 >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
