[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... ;)
//Markus
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 Makefile.am
> > 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
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev