------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-02 18:45 ------- Subject: Re: Lack of Posix compliant thread safety in std::basic_string
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-02 17:23 ------- | > I don't quite understand why you want to see this issue as a memory | > management policy issue, as opposed to a thread safety issue. | | Whatever, after all that is the layer at which you actually do the low-level | memory management. That is the level at which you decide whether actually | freeing or allocating memory, no? No. You can have a thread safe or thread unsafe management. Doing things at low level should not imply being blind-sighted or losing perspective. | But I don't care much about those names. | | > I don't quite understand what "position papers" you're talking about. | > Could you give references to them to clarify the issue? | | Gaby, of course Herb Sutter papers, also reprinted in his book. Ah, but if you said "Herb's paper", that would have rung a bell. Saying "position paper" does not tell me much, except that he who uses that term was being a bit condencending. No, I'm not discussing a position paper. I'm trying to make sure that we do not hand wave PRs under the assumption that they would come from "position papers". | > What are those subtle issues with memory management during exceptions? | > As far as I can tell, V3 is the only one that insists on COW. Why is | > it that others don't have those "subtle issues"? | | Because the best one, definitely have a separate mini-string of sort, | what do you think? You mean the trick used in VC implementation for example? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
