XLC warnings about missing "private" keyword when extending boost::noncopyable

[Ioannis Papadopoulos <ipapadop@…>]

xlc 10.1 throws warnings whenever boost::mutex and boost::recursive_mutex are used because of missing access specifier.

Example output:

"/usr/local/include/boost/thread/pthread/mutex.hpp", line 30.9: 1540-0198 (W) The omitted keyword "private" is assumed for base class "boost::noncopyable".

[viboes]

Replying to Ioannis Papadopoulos <ipapadop@…>:

xlc 10.1 throws warnings whenever boost::mutex and boost::recursive_mutex are used because of missing access specifier.

Example output:

"/usr/local/include/boost/thread/pthread/mutex.hpp", line 30.9: 1540-0198 (W) The omitted keyword "private" is assumed for base class "boost::noncopyable".

Could you show an example?

[viboes]

Following the update to follow more closely C++0X delete operation, instead of inheriting from boost::noncopyable, we can replace by the explicit private constructors

private:

mutex(mutex const&); mutex& operator=(mutex const&);

See attachments.

[viboes]

Correct issue with thread_group default constructor on 4344.patch

[viboes]

Replying to viboes:

See attachments.

Take 3244_2.patch, 3244.patch has a bug on thread_group default constructor.

[Anthony Williams]

Fixed on trunk.