1 Nov
2006
1 Nov
'06
10:55 p.m.
Roland Schwarz wrote:
1) No mention of thread local storage. Why?
One reason is that we hope that the language will provide it. Another is that I haven't had time to prototype my ideas for a thread_specific<X> template. There might be no need, depending on the evolution of the __thread proposal. We'll just write __thread X x; (possibly using another keyword.)