Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] thread_specific_ptr performance
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-12 15:39:16

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Strasser" <strasser_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] thread_specific_ptr performance

Am Tuesday 12 January 2010 21:10:57 schrieb vicente.botet:
> Stefan,
> I have never talk about reset function but the operator*. Just quoting
> yourself "thread_specific_ptr operator*:
> one branch to make sure the vector is large enough(a new
> thread_specific_ptr might have been created by another thread), one
> indirection.
> constant-time average, linear to vector if reallocation is necessary.
> but that can only happen when a new thread_specific_ptr was created."

like I said, "peter´s right, no reallocation in operator*.".
I should have differentiated between get(), reset() and operator* in that
the fact is that only reset() needs to reallocate, and the discussion of
possibly changing the implementation of thread_specific_ptr should be
continued on that basis, no matter what I mistakenly wrote before.
sorry for the confusion.
Unsubscribe & other changes:

Doesn't matter.

In order to follow the discussion do you agree to post a clear proposal using your pages design?


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