David Abrahams wrote:
Right. And I maintain that this is trivial AS LONG AS you can guarantee that threads running that unsafe code will never be cancelled. (This seems reasonable, since obviously threads running that code had never previously been subject to cancellation!) And it's IMPOSSIBLE if you cannot guarantee that. The code must be analyzed and corrected, point by point; and the analysis (and possibly the correction as well) is easier if cancellation is a structured exception than if it's a return status handled in various "unique" ways by each routine.Mathieu Lacage <Mathieu.Lacage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:It looks like what everyone is trying to achieve here is a way for C++authors to write thread-safe libraries.I think you missed something, or maybe the main thing. C++ authors can already write thread-safe libraries. What I'm trying to achieve is to allow existing thread-safe library code that wasn't written with POSIX cancellations in mind to be used easily in a POSIX environment.
-- /--------------------[ David.Butenhof@xxxxxx ]--------------------\ | Hewlett-Packard Company Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect | | My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/ | \----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/