Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue1489 below:

unlock functions and unlock mutex requirements are inconsistent

This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD Editorial status.

Section: 32.6 [thread.mutex] Status: NAD Editorial Submitter: Switzerland Opened: 2010-08-25 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [thread.mutex].

View all issues with NAD Editorial status.

Discussion:

Addresses CH-26

Specifications of unlock member functions and unlock mutex requirements are inconsistent wrt to exceptions and pre- and postconditions.

[ Resolution proposed by ballot comment: ]

unlock should specifiy the precondition that the current thread "owns the lock", this will make calls without holding the locks "undefined behavior". unlock in [mutex.requirements] should either be noexcept(true) or be allowed to throw system_error like unique_lock::unlock, or the latter should be nothrow(true) and have the precondition owns == true. Furthermore unique_lock's postcondition is wrong in the case of a recursive mutex where owns might stay true, when it is not the last unlock needed to be called.

Proposed resolution:

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4