[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Markus Gothe
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] lightweighted mutexes vs. real mutexes
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:22:41 +0100

Indeed, Rob's right and because the lack of other boost-usage so we
wanted to keep it simple.

Go ahead and make the changes to real mutex'es... ;)


On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:29 -0700, Rob Savoye wrote:
> 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 -
> _______________________________________________
> Gnash-dev mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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