This is the mail archive of the 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: [C++0x] a better <future>

> Any memory required for the result is allocated in the promise
> constructor, fixing a weakness in my previous design.  This also makes
> it easier to add allocator support later.
> The result is initialized via placement new so the stored value
> doesn't need to be default constructible or assignable, only move
> constructible. Initialization isn't inside a critical section,
> preventing a deadlock in the 30_threads/promise/members/
> test.


> Extending promise and packaged_task to use allocators will be
> relatively simple, it could be done now if the allocator_arg_t tag
> type existed.  The virtual Future_result_base::_M_destroy() function
> exists so that it can be overridden by derived types using alternative
> allocators.  I hope that will avoid an ABI change when allocator
> support is added.

This is one of the things we need to remember to look out for in the
gcc-4.5 release process, when we'll (hopefully) know more about the
allocator issues. Can you please add a note or XXX ABI comment to the
base member function _M_destroy so that this is a bit more obvious?

> This version started out using a std::atomic_address to hold the
> result, avoiding a mutex lock when setting the result or polling the
> state, but the performance was much better with mutex locks.  The
> version of Future_state using atomics has the same interface, so could
> be changed later if performance of the atomics improves.


FYI please put the tests you are using to make these kinds of decisions
into testsuite/peformance. Assuming you were testing on linux?

> I'm pretty happy with this version, but I'm open to suggestions for
> improvements.

While reading this, it seems as if -fno-exceptions will probably die on
it. I'm not quite sure if any of the C++0x stuff has been audited for
-fno-exceptions. This shouldn't stop this patch from going in.

This looks good to me, please put this in and thanks!


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