Subj : Re: recursive mutexes
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Schwartz
Date : Fri May 20 2005 04:16 pm


"Uenal Mutlu" <520001085531-0001@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d6ljnl$q5j$01$1@news.t-online.com...

 > And besides this, we already had "cleared" all these things above by
 > simply
 > finding not a consensus, rather each continued believing in his own
 > view.

     I'm not sure how you think that constitues a clearing. If you are 
going to continue to state things that are incorrect, I'll continue to 
correct then. If you don't say anything I disagree with, I won't reply.

     Nevertheless, it is not my view that your view is just another view 
and everyone has his own view. It is my view that your view is wrong and
dangerous and that you do damage to other programmers when you spread it.

 > Ie. I prefer the intelligent use of recursive mutex to simplify and
 > ease
 > the development,
 > whereas most who participated in these discussions stated that they
 > find
 > the
 > use of recursive mutexes a bad idea and that they prefer to use
 > non-recursive
 > mutex only (if that's only true for a really complex system...)

     Actually, most find that recurisve mutexes are harmful.

 > And, I can imagine people who develop for Windows and do use
 > CriticalSection that they probably aren't aware of the fact that they
 > actually
 > are using a recursive mutex.

     Windows doesn't provide good non-recursive mutexes. What I 
personally do is either use my own hand-coded spinlocks or use a 
critical section with a wrapper that asserts if it is called recursively.

     If you continue to spread your poison, I will continue to caution 
people not to listen to you.

     DS

.