Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #102 from Brett Lentz <blentz(a)redhat.com> 2011-12-01 13:50:38 EST ---
Ah, it was some flavor of Linux, not OS X or some other non-Linux OS?
Among other things, I am trying to anticipate next steps if the Boost folks
decide to not accept that portion of your fork. Being that it's a violation of
POSIX, it's totally fair for them to say that it's not within the scope of
their library to workaround a broken threading library. The "correct" fix would
be to fix the threading library itself. (I don't like this possibility, but I
must acknowledge that it exists.)
However, I completely agree with you about all of the implications of what a
decision like that means.
For now, I'm hopeful that they'll still accept it because it makes the whole
library's threading support more robust.
In the meantime, if you saw this behavior on Linux, I will look into whether
this issue has already been reported and fixed in pthread. That information
would be good to know, regardless.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.