From: Matt Hurd (matt.hurd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-01 20:52:50
> On 01/09/05, Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >Matt Hurd schrieb:
> >Yep. TLS should be in level 0 I'd think if we can squeeze it in
> >without too much effort. I think some simple thread priority stuff,
> >along with a platform specific thread id, can slip in too without much
> >ado as well. These seem to be FAQs.
> Not sure about this. I think the TLS could very well reside in a
> separate unit. It is
> almost orthogonal to threads. Of course there is a minor dependancy, but
> that could
> be easily solved by introduction of an at_exit_thread mechanism. (Which
> by the way is
> already used under the hoods.)
> On the other hand the concept of thread id's can be based on an extended
> of TLS. I already submitted a draft of this that can be found in my
> thread alert
> submission. So in some sense there might be some dependancy from threads
> upon TLS.
We'll see how we travel. Just getting the current interface rewritten
will be a start. I do hope we can take that momentum and tackle the
other needs quickly.
> >I'll organise a central point by early next week and start a doc if
> >agreed. I'd prefer something like an open office doc to a wiki.
> >Changes can be annotated, filtered back and accepted and re-published
> >to the site as a doc and as html. I'm a bit of a dinosaur w.r.t. to
> >this new fangled wiki stuff...
> Fine! But I am not sure if switching to open office will set some
> additional barriers for
> others. Why not simply using the infrastucture that is already there?
> There is already a wiki installed, and there is also a thread section in it.
> Could we give it a try?
> Also introducing a new method might only artificially increase the ever
> present unavoidable
> entropy. I think we rather should put energy in it to decrease it (at
> least locally ;-)
I'll check out the wiki.
> <-->8-- snipped -->8-- >
> >The main part that scares me is the trickiness of the static
> >linking win32 issues.
> I am in a good position to deal with these issues, since it was me who
> the static linking code parts.
> But what I see as a first major challenge is how to organize the library
> to split
<snip> agree to the split directories, see earlier response to later post.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk