At Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:09:12 +0100, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 04/03/2011 21:15, Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:20:43 +0100, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 04/03/2011 18:55, Chad Nelson wrote:
It isn't meant to be shared between threads. The internal code is single-threaded, and if you enable this on the public interface, you explicitly *dis*able the library's thread safety.
Sharing data between threads is not the same as accessing the same data concurrently from multiple threads.
In what way are those two things... two things? As far as I can tell they mean exactly the same.
I guess that statement doesn't really say what I meant it to say ;).
I meant to say that there is no need for the primitives of the resource to be robust with regards to concurrent execution for the resource to be shared across threads, since of course the threads can be synchronized at a higher level to ensure that concurrent execution of any of the primitives does not happen.
+1, thanks for clarifying. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com