From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-28 05:59:12
Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> 64KB? We had a code which worked by creating such table, and after
>> to NPTL is started throwing "out of memory" errors when resizing this
> NTPL == Native Posix Thread Library?
> I think that we are seeking for a way to avoid shortcomings of native
> Win32 thread local storage, not Posix one. Maybe NTPL does not need
> such workarounds?
Probably I misunderstood your previous posts, but it sounded like you
say that TSS is not needed at
all, and should be replaced with singletons and hand-crafted thread-id
-> instance mapping. I believe
that on Linux, using provided TSS facilities is better, and so I need
thread_specific_ptr. And to write
portable code, that class should be present everywhere.
Now, do you propose that thread_specific_ptr implementation is changed
to use hand-crafted mapping? How that will help with cleanup issues?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk