try this int **ptr;

All synchronization objects works the same way regarding this, e.g. locking a mutex, releasing a semaphore or setting an event. In your case the event will be set until some thread calls any of the wait functions such as ::WaitForSingleObject(). The event may be set up to automatically reset when the thread that waits on the event gets released, or it may be set to be "manual reset" in which case you have to call ::ResetEvent() to set the event in a non-signalled state. But, you have to call any of the waiting functions in order to find out whether the event is signalled or not. You may call ::WaitForSingelObject() with a timeout value of zero in which case the function will return with WAIT_TIMEOUT unless the event was set. "It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote "High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

In Addition to Nibu's comment, it's better to approach diamond inheritance in terms of Virtual Inheritance. Diamond Problem[^] Virtual Inheritance [^] Virtual Inheritance- C++ FAQ[^] -Sarath. "Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin My blog - Sharing My Thoughts, An Article - Understanding Statepattern

I think its not a bad idea in general scenario. But might not be good idea in my scenario. As according to my problem when a particular service is down, the user which is logged in must have a process running which can handle the situation. In this way, that user is required to be logged in permanently. Which for me doesn't seems to be a good idea. In other words, What if no user is logged in and one of those services goes down. No one will be there to handle the situation. However, "Winsta0\default" looks quite different to me. May be like someone who is always there. In this case it should work. I'll try it out. Thanks everyone for your valuable time. This forum is really one of the bests I've ever seen. :)