Farid Zaripov-2 wrote: > >> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to give users the ability to >> decide whether to enable TLS in case they don't need LoadLibrary() >> or not. What do you think? > > Hmm. I only can say, that nor MSVC run-time, nor STLport nor boost > libraries are not > using the implicit TLS. > > Currently the TLS variables are used in 3 places only: > - exception's what-buffer; > - table for random number generator; > - buffer for __rw_tmpbuf(). > >
Right. But there might be other opportunities for TLS (e.g., in locale or maybe in some of the C++ 0x facilities?) > > We need to check what would be if an exception object is created in one > thread (i.e. thus "throw new exception();") > and after catch() the pointer passed to another thread and there deleted? > > Ouch! Tricky! I hadn't thought of this when I implemented it. I think we either need to get this case to work or disable TLS for exceptions, but we can't have it crash (which, I assume, is what happens in this case?) > > The same issue with __rw_tmpbuf(). What would be if we getting the > temporary buffer in one thread using > get_temporary_buffer(), and releasing it, using return_temporary_buffer(), > in another thread? > > That would also be a problem. In this case, though, I think it would be sufficient to document it as a restriction of the API. IMO, getting this to work would be more trouble than it's worth. Martin -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-svn-commit%3A-r713762----stdcxx-branches-4.2.x-include-rw-_config.h-tp20518249p20553291.html Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
