Hi, Is there an implementation of a concurrent, lock-free, queue? I remember reading that there was an implementation, but I can't find the e-mail :) Thanks, J
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jonathon
Hi,
Is there an implementation of a concurrent, lock-free, queue? I remember reading that there was an implementation, but I can't find the e-mail :)
Thanks, J _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
A library has been accepted called boost.lockfree. It contains a fifo queue. Brian
awesome. thanks. so will it be in the next release of boost?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Brian Budge
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jonathon
wrote: Hi,
Is there an implementation of a concurrent, lock-free, queue? I remember reading that there was an implementation, but I can't find the e-mail :)
Thanks, J _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
A library has been accepted called boost.lockfree. It contains a fifo queue.
Brian _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:30 PM, Jonathon
awesome. thanks. so will it be in the next release of boost?
Not likely as it depends on Boost.Atomic which has yet to be reviewed. However, I believe the review found the interface to be mostly ok, though the class names may change, so if you can use outside code, it's probably safe to use Tim's library as-is. http://tim.klingt.org/code/projects/boost-lockfree/ Cheers, Gordon
hi,
awesome. thanks. so will it be in the next release of boost?
Not likely as it depends on Boost.Atomic which has yet to be reviewed.
However, I believe the review found the interface to be mostly ok, though the class names may change, so if you can use outside code, it's probably safe to use Tim's library as-is.
the deadline for 1.48 has already passed, so my goal is to merge it for 1.49. iac, you can use the version from my git repository for the time, but make sure to use the addressing_reviews branch, which has some interface changes that have been suggested during the review. cheers, tim
participants (4)
-
Brian Budge
-
Gordon Woodhull
-
Jonathon
-
Tim Blechmann