"vicente.botet" <
vicente.botet@...> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Consider the following situations:
>
> {
> unique_lock<mutex> lock(smtx);
>
> // ... some writing operations
>
> { // non locked block
> reverse_lock< unique_lock<mutex> > rlock(lock);
> // ... some code not needing the mutex to be locked
> } // locked again
>
> // ...
> }
> Do you think this usage is souhaitable or is this source of errors?
I've had to do it myself a few times. I think it's worthwhile adding it to the
library in order to ensure it is done as safely as possible.
Anthony
--
Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development |
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.ukRegistered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
