From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-24 10:21:23
"William E. Kempf" wrote:
> Things in the standard library aren't thread safe, unless an
> implementation chooses to make it so. The standard doesn't specify
> *anything* about threads, including the thread safety of any operations.
> Obviously, everyone knows that. I'm stating it now to make a point. When
> the standard finally does have something to say about threads, I'm not
> sure that it's a given that we'll be able to say "things in the standard
> library are as thread safe as an int" (or what many call thread-neutral).
> If some standard "thing" *must* rely on shared state (not a given for
> string, like it is for shared_ptr), I can certainly have sympathy with
> those who want control over whether or not a particular instance of this
> thing needs any synchronization.
Right, and, just to add one more link to a rather interesting thread:
(Subject: Re: Memory isolation)
here I was talking about kinda "thread_safety::unsafe" allocators...
which would not only save some processing cycles due to lack of sync,
but COULD also save a whole lot of *storage* due to lack of "memory
isolation" (it's needed for "strong" thread-safe allocators, "basic"
thread-safe ones aside for a moment)...
-- "For your information, this subject was discussed at the last meeting of the British C++ standards panel" -- http://tinyurl.com/ckgf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk