Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > | > However, my point is that > | > > | > * a class is closed: that is, by the time you put the closing brace, > | > the "offset" of the data member is a compile-time constant. > | > > | > * the number of thread local variables is potentially unbounded, > | > meaning that, using your analogy, the offset of the corresponding > | > data-member is not known by the time the compiler finishes > | > processing a given translation unit. > | > | OK... is that a problem? > > As I'm understanding the issue, yes. I would love to be proved wrong. > > | The address of a static global is not known > | when the compiler finishes processing a given translation unit either. > > Sure the logical address is known. > > As opposed to the address of a variable with a TLS.
It has just one "logical address", which will turn out to correspond to different physical addresses depending on the thread executing at the time. When the implementation handles it at compile-time, it uses only the logical address. At the compile-time/runtime boundary the logical address is converted to a physical address by dereferencing off the base TLS pointer. This is just like a data member pointer. I still don't see a problem. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
