¡@
c++ Programming Glossary: atomicityWhen to make a type non-movable in C++11? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14302834/when-to-make-a-type-non-movable-in-c11 building blocks of safe concurrent code and must ensure atomicity of all operations on them. If the object value might be moved..
Is there a non-atomic equivalent of std::shared_ptr? And why isn't there one in <memory>? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15129263/is-there-a-non-atomic-equivalent-of-stdshared-ptr-and-why-isnt-there-one-in memory This is a bit of a two part question all about the atomicity of std shared_ptr 1. As far as I can tell std shared_ptr is.. has the same semantics as std shared_ptr but without the atomicity. 2. I understand why std shared_ptr is atomic it's kinda nice...
Do I need to synchronize std::condition_variable/condition_variable_any::notify_one http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15887306/do-i-need-to-synchronize-stdcondition-variable-condition-variable-anynotify uses the internal mutex to provide that guarantee of atomicity. The internal mutex must be locked to avoid missed notifications..
Looking for a disk-based B+ tree implementation in C++ or C http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1720738/looking-for-a-disk-based-b-tree-implementation-in-c-or-c disk file organization is enough no need for concurrency atomicity and everything else. 2 I am using this to prototype my own index..
Why is the volatile qualifier used through out std::atomic? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2479067/why-is-the-volatile-qualifier-used-through-out-stdatomic atomic. The volatile qualifier however is not required for atomicity. And no atomic objects don't have to be volatile. share improve..
How can I achieve something similar to a semaphore using boost in c++? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3928853/how-can-i-achieve-something-similar-to-a-semaphore-using-boost-in-c words is an exclusive lock. Condition is used to achieve atomicity when you need to unlock the mutex and wait for object to change...
Is volatile a proper way to make a single byte atomic in C/C++? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4936289/is-volatile-a-proper-way-to-make-a-single-byte-atomic-in-c-c byte atomic in C C I know that volatile does not enforce atomicity on int for example but does it if you access a single byte The.. Not only does the standard not say anything about atomicity but you are likely even asking the wrong question. CPUs typically.. the new value not the old one. Their job is not so much atomicity of operations exactly but making sure the appropriate synchronization..
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6319146/c11-introduced-a-standardized-memory-model-what-does-it-mean-and-how-is-it-g to the spec. The spec does not even say anything about the atomicity of memory loads and stores or the order in which loads and stores.. likes. So the default behavior of atomics provides both atomicity and ordering for loads and stores. Now on a modern CPU ensuring.. tolerate out of order loads and stores i.e. if it requires atomicity but not ordering i.e. if it can tolerate 37 0 as output from..
Accessing atomic<int> of C++0x as non-atomic http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7234270/accessing-atomicint-of-c0x-as-non-atomic share improve this question You can't get rid of the atomicity property. But you might be able to reduce some of the overhead..
|