Subject: Re: [boost] concurrent_unordered_map request
From: Nigel Pattinson (nigel.pattinson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-20 17:45:57
> TBB and Microsoft have it. Why not to have it in boos?
I am in the middle of writing a suite of concurrent containers which I
intend to submit to boost. Planned for inclusion are queue, stack, set,
map, unordered set and unordered map, all in coarse grained and fine
grained versions. The coarse grained versions are wrappers around the
standard containers, but the fine grained versions are implemented from
scratch. Coarse and fine grained versions share a common interface. If this
is accepted, I would aim to add lock-free versions later.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 20 August 2013 14:06, adrien courdavault <adrien.courdavault_at_[hidden]
> > You mean lock free?
> > Because if I understood well the updated containers with c++11
> > standard will be thread safe because of the definition of const.
> No, they won't.
> The are "safe" in the sense that you can call non-modifying functions in
> different threads without synchronization as long as no one is calling a
> modifying function, but that really isn't the guarantee people are looking
> for when they want a "thread-safe" data structure.
> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk