incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 : numpunct fix
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:46:50 GMT

On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Travis Vitek
> <Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I'll let you in on a little secret: once you call setlocale(3C) and
>>> localeconv(3C), the Standard C Library doesn't release its own locale
>>> handles until process termination. So you might think you save a lot
>>> of memory by destroying and constructing the same locales. You're
>>> really not. It's the Standard C Library locale data which takes up a
>>> lot of space.
>> 
>> You have a working knowledge of all Standard C Library implementations?
> 
> I happen to do, yes, for the operating systems that I've been testing
> on. I also happen to know that you don't. This fact alone pretty much
> closes up *this* particular discussion.
> 
> Do yourself, and this mailing list a favor: either write a patch which
> addresses all of your concerns *AND* eliminates all the race
> conditions reported, or stop this pseudo software engineering bullshit
> via email.
> 
> There is apparently, a high concentration of know-it-alls on this
> mailing list, who are much better at detecting race conditions and
> thread unsafety than the tools themselves. Too bad they aren't as good
> at figuring out their own bugs.


The sniping is uncalled for. There are no enemies here, no one is after you. There is criticism
though and you are expected to take it and argue your point of view. If you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen.


> 
> It took eight months for anyone here to even *acknowledge* that
> numpunct and moneypunct do have, in fact, a thread safety problem.
> Never mind that the test case for these facets had been crashing for 4
> years. To be quite blunt and to the point, after 8 months of denying
> obvious facts, your credibility is quite a bit under question at this
> point.


Yes, we are busy with other stuff. I wish I got paid to work on this instead.


> 
> This entire discussion has become a perfect illustration with what's
> wrong with the ASF, as reported here:
> 
> http://www.mikealrogers.com/posts/apache-considered-harmful.html


I actually read it. I see a guy complaining he can't have it his way. No problem. One can
fork this project at any time and start it anew, by themselves, or in the company of like
programmers elsewhere. 

For better or worse Apache got STDCXX from RogueWave. Complaining about it is like complaining
that Apple doesn't give us iPhones for free; after all we are the power users and we know
what to do with them.

L
Mime
View raw message