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 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:17:52 GMT
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara <> wrote:

> 1. The facet data caching is not MT-safe
> 2. The facet data initialization (STDCXX or system locales) is safe (*)
> 3. There is no unit test currently showing a failure in (2)
> 4. Timing results show that caching may be slower than non-caching in MT
> builds
> 5. A fix should, ideally, be binary compatible
> 6. A fix should, ideally, preserve performance or increase it
> 7. There is one patch, currently attached to the issue, by Stefan
> 8. Other partial patches are referenced from this thread
> Please correct me if I missed anything. The above summary is a good starting

For the record, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment above.
It is not based on any verifiable and reproducible facts, analysis of
facts and/or measurements. It is based on assertions, which are, in
turn, based on other assertions.

As long as you continue dismissinsg the results from 4 [ FOUR ]
different thread analyzer, on 4 [ FOUR ] different operating systems,
and that solely on the basis on your assertions and beliefs, there is
no point in continuing this debate.

The results from all four thread analyzers contradict to all of your
assertions. If you firmly and strongly believe that you are always
right, and that the four thread analyzers are always wrong, that is
your choice.


Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message