This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
To: Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd dot net>
Cc: Phillip Jordan <phillip dot m dot jordan at gmail dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 04:00:34 +0200
Subject: Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
References: <44AD1E9B.4070801@gmail.com> <004401c6a111$5844d5e0$6701a8c0@pdimov> <44AF05EF.3060000@gmail.com> <002b01c6a231$8c1bd7d0$6407a8c0@pdimov2>

Peter Dimov wrote:

http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/stdlib/random.c?rev=1.18&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=glibc

says that
/* POSIX.1c requires that there is mutual exclusion for the `rand' and
  `srand' functions to prevent concurrent calls from modifying common
  data.  */
and seems to have a lock around __random, which rand calls.

Interesting, I never studied that code before... But I don't think we can be similarly sure about all the other libcs that we are supporting...

Paolo.

References:
- [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
  - From: Phillip Jordan
- Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
  - From: Peter Dimov
- Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
  - From: Phillip Jordan
- Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
  - From: Peter Dimov

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]