Re: [Boost-users] [thread] comparison with Intel Threading BuildingBlocks

From: Chris (cmicel1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-25 11:20:11

Ovanes Markarian wrote:
> On Wed, July 25, 2007 17:06, Andrew Holden wrote:
>   
>> Ovanes Markarian wrote:
>>     
>>> Thanks for you link, a very interesting one ;) I ment this
>>> one in my previous post:
>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2276.html
>>>       
>> Another interesting technology.  I'll need to examine it more closely.
>> It looks similar to TBB.  Intel's implementation of TBB uses tasks and
>> thread pools.  Instead of futures, it uses canned parallel algorithms
>> that WILL complete before returning, thus freeing the user from worrying
>> that values might not be ready.
>>
>> It looks like the futures run at a somewhat lower level than TBB, which
>> is certainly not a bad thing.  I can already see the beginnings of some
>> ideas where it might do things that TBB can't, like any situation where
>> you wish to launch a separate thread (or task) and forget about it.  I'm
>> also intrigued by the option of waiting an a specific return value from
>> the thread instead of joining the entire thread, like in boost.thread.
>>
>> I find myself wordering if this would be a worthy addition to
>> boost.thread.  It looks like you could use a boost.thread condition
>> object in the implementation of a future.
>>     
>
> AFAIK Peter Dimov did some technology evaluation and implementation for futures. I also saw that
> Howard Hinnant was working on futures. May be there are already some implemenations which prove
> the concept.
>
> Boost Vault contains them at:
> http://boost-consulting.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directory=Concurrent%20Programming
>
>
>
>
> With Kind Regards,
>
> Ovanes Markarian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>
>   
A project at http://saga.cct.lsu.edu uses future objects for every api 
call of the interface. Works for us fine. Also, we added some concept of 
|| and && with futures for waiting concepts.