[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] lightweighted mutexes vs. real mutexes

From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] lightweighted mutexes vs. real mutexes
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:29:28 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061107)

strk wrote:

> The dark side is that *real* mutexes require the boost
> thread lib, whereas the *lightweighted* ones only needed
> headers. No big deal though as the autoconf scripts already
> check for it, so just add BOOST_LIBS to the
> when you use boost threads.

  I thought the main reason lightweight threads got used was because at
that time, Gnash's configure code wasn't finding the library. This got
fixed though, and as far as I can tell, it works fine. So I agree, we
should use "real" mutexes. There are other Boost things we will want to
be using, like date-time, etc.. so we might as well start using Boost in
it's full glory. :-)

  While we're at it, there is a bunch of usages of Pthreads mutexes and
threads that should probably be changed.

        - rob -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]