stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wojciech Meyer <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 : numpunct fix
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:34:46 GMT

My perceptions is by reading through the whole thread - we should not
trust 100% external tools to asses the safety of the code. I don't think
there exist an algorithm that produces no false positives.

That's said I admire Stefan's approach, but we should ask the question
are we MT safe enough? I would say from what I read here: yes.

Liviu Nicoara <> writes:

> On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Liviu Nicoara <> wrote:
>> To answer your question [...]:
>> yes, the MT failures occur on SPARC as well, on both SPARCV8 and
>> SPARCV9, and the race conditions are reported on *ALL* plaforms
>> tested, even after having applied your _numpunct.h patch. This patch
>> alone does *NOT* solve the problem.
> Stefan, I want to be clear. You are talking about a patch identical in
> nature to the one I have attached now. Just want to be 100% sure we
> are talking about the same thing. This one still produces failures
> (crashes, assertions, etc.) in the locale MT tests on SPARC and
> elsewhere in your builds?
> Thanks,
> Liviu

Wojciech Meyer

View raw message