A bug in peq_with_get class?

[zhenkai.zhang]

Hi,

In the get_next_transaction() function of peq_with_get class, isn't this statement "m_event.notify(m_scheduled_events.begin()->first - now);" should also be in the previous if statement block?

namely,

if (m_scheduled_events.begin()->first <= now) {

transaction_type* trans = m_scheduled_events.begin()->second;

m_scheduled_events.erase(m_scheduled_events.begin());

//-----------------------------------------------------------

// duplicate the statement here

m_event.notify(m_scheduled_events.begin()->first - now);

//------------------------------------------------------------

return trans;

}

otherwise, some later transactions won't pop up since m_event is not set again.

Is this right? or I misunderstand the usage of peq_with_get?

[zhenkai.zhang]

Well, never mind. I think I misunderstood the usage of get_next_transaction() function.

I should put "trans = get_next_transaction()" in a while loop to let the transactions with later delays get processed.