[devicenull]

/*=================Last Connected======================
*	Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Brian "devicenull" Rak
*	License: zlib/libpng
*	$Id: safeStack.h 23 2006-06-16 18:33:22Z  $
=====================================================*/

#include "sh_stack.h"
#include "pthread.h"

template <class T> class safeStack
{
public:
	void init()
	{
		pthread_mutex_init(&mSafe,NULL);
	}
	void destroy()
	{
		pthread_mutex_lock(&mSafe);
		pthread_mutex_destroy(&mSafe);
	}
	void push(T newItem)
	{
		pthread_mutex_lock(&mSafe);
		sStack.push(newItem);
		pthread_mutex_unlock(&mSafe);
	}
	T& pop()
	{
		pthread_mutex_lock(&mSafe);
		T &temp = sStack.front();
		sStack.pop();
		pthread_mutex_unlock(&mSafe);
		return temp;
	}
	int count()
	{
		pthread_mutex_lock(&mSafe);
		int temp = sStack.size();
		pthread_mutex_unlock(&mSafe);
		return temp;
	}


private:
	SourceHook::CStack<T> sStack;
	pthread_mutex_t mSafe;
};

My question: Is this a good way of doing it? I only need push, pop, and count, so those are the only one's I've implemented. I don't initalize the mutex in the constructor because I have to initalize the pthread library before I can call that, and I've set it up to not use a pointer to the safeStack object.

[BAILOPAN]

Yes, that works. Locking/unlocking mutexes is expensive. If you do a lot of operations in a row, you might want to introduce two new member functions: lock() and unlock().

[kormonautti]

You should use the constructor and destructor. Now there is a possibility to resource leaks and that is not a good idea. Also remember to check return values of pthread functions. This is from the pthread man:

The pthread_mutex_destroy function returns the following error code on error: EBUSY the mutex is currently locked.