C++ committee calling for lib proposals
The C++ committee is calling for library proposals for their inclusion in C++11: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3370.html . I think some of the boost libraries are good candidates, like the recently accepted boost::lockfree. Has anyone considered sending such proposal?
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Noe Casas Manzanares
The C++ committee is calling for library proposals for their inclusion in C++11: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3370.html .
I think some of the boost libraries are good candidates, like the recently accepted boost::lockfree. Has anyone considered sending such proposal?
Lock-free algorithms are neat and typically scale very well, but are easily misunderstood and often used for the wrong reasons (like performance). C++ could certainly use concurrency-safe containers (Intel's TBB has a lot of stuff that could be donated), but I think focusing on lock-free ones is the wrong approach. -- Cory Nelson http://int64.org
The C++ committee is calling for library proposals for their inclusion in C++11: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3370.html .
I think some of the boost libraries are good candidates, like the recently accepted boost::lockfree. Has anyone considered sending such proposal?
Lock-free algorithms are neat and typically scale very well, but are easily misunderstood and often used for the wrong reasons (like performance). C++ could certainly use concurrency-safe containers (Intel's TBB has a lot of stuff that could be donated), but I think focusing on lock-free ones is the wrong approach.
lock-free data structures usually have better latency/worst-case behavor, but a lower throughput than concurrent data structures. but in many use cases, throughput is more important than latency ... cheers, tim
participants (3)
-
Cory Nelson -
Noe Casas Manzanares -
Tim Blechmann