Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>  Peter Dimov wrote:
>  [...]
> > Here's TryEnterCriticalSection (-recursivity) for reference:
> > 
> > bool try_lock( critical_section * p )
> > {
> >     return atomic_compare_exchange( p->LockCount, -1, 0 ) == 0;
> > }
>  
>  The point of "swap based mutex" exercise was to avoid CAS because
>  i386 doesn't have it. With CAS (and absent timedlock operation),
>  it can be made safe and fast (better than MS "critical" stuff).

Why is i386 support important (for a Windows mutex implementation, I mean)?
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost