Re: What's the connection between objects and threads?
On May 20, 10:26 pm, Szabolcs Ferenczi <szabolcs.feren...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On May 20, 11:36 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 19, 9:22 pm, Szabolcs Ferenczi <szabolcs.feren...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On May 19, 8:43 pm, gpderetta <gpdere...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 19, 8:23 pm, Szabolcs Ferenczi <szabolcs.feren...@gmail.com>
wrote:
For instance here:
"The SGI implementation of STL is thread-safe only in
the sense that simultaneous accesses to distinct
containers are safe, and simultaneous read accesses to
to shared containers are safe. If multiple threads
access a single container, and at least one thread may
potentially write, then the user is responsible for
ensuring mutual exclusion between the threads during
the container accesses. "
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/thread_safety.html
Yes, in that sense is thread safe.
Please explain it to the forum fighters.
No need. They all, especially James Kanze, know very well.
Are you suggesting that he intentionally makes fool of
himself?http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/bf81088bfec40=
dab
You ask:
Do you understand English?
I guess so.
You don't seem to.
The SGI statement says exactly what
I said, that the implementation is thread safe.
SGI statement simply contradicts you: "If multiple threads
access a single container, and at least one thread may
potentially write, then THE USER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING
MUTUAL EXCLUSION BETWEEN THE THREADS during the container
accesses." It is just safe for reading, so what I said was
correct that it is thread safe to a certain extent.
That's not the only guarantee it gives. It specifies the
contract that you have to respect. In other words, it is
completely thread safe.
The SGI also confirms me: "The SGI implementation of STL is
thread- safe ONLY IN THE SENSE that ..."
Only in the sense of thread safety normally used by the experts
in the domain. It's true that they felt they had to add this
statement because a lot of beginners have misconceptions about
the meaning of the word. (Maybe you're one of them, and that's
the problem.)
That is it is not "completely thread safe" as you claimed.
Sorry, but that is the accepted definition of "completely thread
safe".
You like to talk big, don't you?
And what is that supposed to mean? Pointing out your
misstatements is "talking big"?
[...]
Besides, you still must show us how can you get elements from
the plain "completely thread safe" STL containers with
multiple consumers. (You cannot show this because you just
talk big as usual.)
Are you trying to say that you cannot use STL containers for
communications between threads? I use std::deque, for example,
in my message queue, and it works perfectly.
This is so basic, there has to be some misunderstanding on your
part.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34