On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Peter Dimov
In
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/9466
it is reported that using Boost.Thread on AIX without defining BOOST_THREAD_DONT_USE_ATOMIC causes an assertion failure in boost/smart_ptr/detail/lwm_pthreads.hpp (pthread_mutex_lock failing with EINVAL.)
As I explain in the ticket, what I think happens is that Boost.Atomic falls back to its generic lock pool implementation, which uses a static array of 41 boost::lightweight_mutex objects.
However, since lightweight_mutex has a constructor calling pthread_mutex_init and a destructor calling pthread_mutex_destroy, using call_once, directly or indirectly, outside main can lead to accessing a mutex object before it's constructed or after it's destroyed, depending on static initialization order.
If I'm correct in this assumption, then lockpool.hpp/.cpp need to be fixed to either use boost/smart_ptr/detail/spinlock_pool.hpp*, or use statically initialized pthread mutexes directly.
*) Which is basically what it was designed for, see the comment:
// spinlock_pool<0> is reserved for atomic<>, when/if it arrives
Yes, I'll have to replace lightweight_mutex with pthread_mutex_t with static initialization. I think in terms of dependency management this would be better than depending on Boost.SmartPtr. This will only work on platforms with PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER, but I don't know any platform without it. Windows is handled with intrinsics, so it should not be a problem. Could you assign the ticket to Boost.Atomic and me? I'll try to take a look at the weekend. PS: Are we done with the transition to git?