Boost logo

Boost :

From: Marco (mrcekets_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-28 09:59:26

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:35:21 +0200, <james.jones_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> From: "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]>
>> james.jones_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> > From: Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]>
>> > I have done a lot of work on something very similar to this that I
>> > was hoping to propose fairly soon (next few weeks). The interface
>> > isn't quite N2198, but I'm not crazy about N2198 anyway (it isn't
>> > threadsafe, for example, AFAICT). I've been using the IEEE754r spec.
>> > Is it worthwhile at all to continue to work on a BOOST library for
>> > fixed decimal arithmetic without making it N2198 compliant?
>> >
>> > There would probably be a way to make an N2198-compliant version of
>> > my code, if that were necessary.
>> Good question, I'm very surprised that N2198 isn't thread safe, how
>> come?
> I'm not sure about this, actually - but do the fe* functions guarantee
> thread safety? I read over Sun's documentation and it says they do, but
> can this generally be assumed? N2198 specifies that cfenv be used for
> context, and this is where I got concerned.

IMHO thread-safety is more an implementation issue, what let you guess
that it is not possible building a thread-safe implementation of interface
N2198 ?


Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at