stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:51:45 GMT
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Liviu Nicoara <> wrote:

> In the meantime I would like to stress again that __rw_get_numpunct is
> perfectly thread-safe and does not need extra locking for perfect
> forwarding.

So, by removing the test for

          if (!(_C_flags & _RW::__rw_gr))

(or any other bitmask for that matter), the functions which were
thread-unsafe - and were exhibiting all the symptoms of a run-time
race condition -, magically became thread-safe?

I have looked *extensively* at the code in __rw_get_numpunct. It is
inherently thread-unsafe.


Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message