Subj : Re: SEM_UNDO substitute on windows
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Torsten Robitzki
Date : Tue May 24 2005 11:40 pm

Vyacheslav Kononenko wrote:

> 
> Torsten Robitzki wrote:
> 
>>Vyacheslav Kononenko wrote:
> 
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Right. But it should let other readers try to crush too.

Yep, in real it depends on the kind of application too. For the kind of 
applications I'm writing, it's ok to let the application run even if one 
process connected to a shared memory crashes.

.