"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Edward Diener said: > > "Alexander Terekhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> Ken Hagan wrote: > >> > > >> > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I, for one, believe strongly that "&k" is nothing but > >> > > > >> > > "static_cast<typeof(k)*>(pthread_getspecific(__k_key));" > >> > > > >> > > It *isn't* a compile-time constant (just like &errno isn't a > >> compile time constant). > >> > > >> > MSVC has no pthread_getspecific(), so I venture to suggest that your > >> belief probably isn't valid for that compiler. > >> > >> Uhmm. In return, I venture to suggest that MS-TLS can and shall be > >> characterized as ``utterly busted.'' > >> > >> "If a DLL declares any nonlocal data or object as __declspec(thread), > >> it can cause a protection fault if dynamically loaded." > > > > This is well-known by many and has never been hidden by MS. It doesn't > > mean __declspec(thread) is busted, it just means that it is limited to > > only those cases in which the DLL is not dynamically loaded, which is > > the vast majority of cases. Of course to make TLS completely foolproof, > > one does not use __declspec(thread) but instead one uses the Win32 TLS > > API functions instead. > > Where you run into issues with TLS cleanup ;).
Such as ? You can clean up your own TLS index ( or indices ) in your DllMain routine when the seond parameter is DLL_PROCESS_DETACH, meaning that your process is being exited. AFAIK this is the standard way to do this. > > I won't be as critical as Alexander, but I will agree that the MS TLS > implementation has serious design issues which need to be corrected. OK, this isn't the place to debate Windows TLS, but I have not run into such design issues myself. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
