Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "doublecheckedlock".
2009 May 17
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
...t least one case of thread-unsafety
> (ManagedStatic), has proven very-difficult-to-impossible to implement
> correctly without using lower-level operations.
>
Yes, double-checked locking is a pain. There's a C++ safe implementation
in
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
in the "Making it work with explicit memory barriers" section. As far as
I know, it is still considered to work.
Luke
> --Owen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________...
2009 May 17
1
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
...ty
>> (ManagedStatic), has proven very-difficult-to-impossible to implement
>> correctly without using lower-level operations.
>>
>
> Yes, double-checked locking is a pain. There's a C++ safe
> implementation
> in
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
> in the "Making it work with explicit memory barriers" section. As
> far as
> I know, it is still considered to work.
Our problems are actually deeper than that, because we need to
interact well with static constructors. This means that we can't use
a mutex w...
2009 May 17
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
On May 16, 2009, at 7:47 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote:
> Owen Anderson wrote:
>> Some of you may have noticed that I addedd include/llvm/System/
>> Atomics.h
>> to the repository briefly, which will be used for adding support for
>> threading in LLVM.
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there a design document somewhere for the
> plan
> for threading?
Not as