Subj : Re: SEM_UNDO substitute on windows To : comp.programming.threads From : Torsten Robitzki Date : Tue May 24 2005 08:14 pm Vyacheslav Kononenko wrote: > Joe Seigh wrote: > >>On 23 May 2005 00:14:37 -0700, wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, >>>Is there any substitute for SEM_UNDO functionality (offered by unix >>>semaphore implementation) on Windows. Solution may use anything > > other > >>>than semaphore if it offers similar functionality. >>>Thanks in advance, >>>Deepesh >>> >> >>Windows is already broken. You don't need to break it any further >>with some dubious use of SEM_UNDO. There are some legtimate uses >>of SEM_UNDO but I doubt this is the case here. >> >>You can wait on thread handles or there may be some general > > notification > >>mechanism for thread termination. Though if you're thinking of > > "unlocking" > >>a semaphore when the protected data is in an undefined state, it > > would be > >>much easier and quicker to just not use the semaphore in the first > > place. > >> >>-- >>Joe Seigh >> >>When you get lemons, you make lemonade. >>When you get hardware, you make software. > > > Hmm. How about a case when I have one writer and many readers and one > of the readers crashes? That should be safe to just unlock in this > case. Am I wrong? Depends on why the reader crashed ;-) Maybe due to a bogus write to memory. .