From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-25 05:38:56
"Ken Hagan" <K.Hagan_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Alexander Terekhov wrote:
| > Uhmm. In return, I venture to suggest that MS-TLS can and shall be
| > characterized as ``utterly busted.''
| Fine, but the OP asked about existing practice and the bugs
| don't change the fact that "&k" can be a template parameter
| if the compiler is willing to thunk its way around the TLS
| implementation under the hood.
I think extreme caution should be exercised with that line of reasoning.
There is what that particular implementation does with its extensions and
there are various mulit-threading models, what the standard language is
defined to be and ways to extend it to support multi-thread and thread
local storage. In that regard, bugs in either the design or the
implementation don't count as arguments for not being cautious about
what that implementation does.
That may sound obvious but I feel that need to be stated.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk