similar to: Thread safety and class methods

On 8 Feb 2018, at 15:18, Kim Walisch <kim.walisch at gmail.com> wrote: > I have read the concurrency webpage from the Xapian documentation: > > http://getting-started-with-xapian.readthedocs.io/en/latest/concepts/concurrency.html > > But it is still not clear to me how to ensure thread-safety when using > libxapian (C++ API). > > 1) Can many thread search the >

Hi, I have read the concurrency webpage from the Xapian documentation: http://getting-started-with-xapian.readthedocs.io/en/latest/concepts/concurrency.html But it is still not clear to me how to ensure thread-safety when using libxapian (C++ API). Usually when doing multi-threading many threads can read the same variable concurrently without locking provided none of the threads modifies the

Are class attributes thread safe? For instance, the userstamp plugin creates a User.current_user attribute and then it aliases the ActiveRecard create and update methods to write created_by and updated_by attributes using the value of User.current_user. For some reason I can imagine a case where multiple users are logged in at the same time and saving objects, and the value of

I tried to find some help in the Passenger group without luck. I would not like to use mysql2 gem (it gives an error too) because in production I have to use mysql gem anyway. I moved to Passenger 3 and I am not able to run a Rails 2 and a 3 apps. They both uses Passenger 3 (latest) and ree 2011.03. The Rails 2 app gives uninitialized constant MysqlCompat::MysqlRes The Rails 3: NoMethodError

That sounds like a missed multi-threading issue with LLVM. I can't imagine why the user should be forced to serialize creation of MCContext objects. I would suggest filing a bug for this. A simple lock probably wouldn't be too detrimental to performance here, since MCContext objects shouldn't be created too often. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at

Right. glibc's amusing stance is that you setenv/putenv are not thread safe, but getenv is. I assume Ruby exposes setenv and therefore simply not calling setenv isn't an option. Would it solve your problems if all getenv() calls happened at cl::ParseCommandLineOptions() time? On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > >

Hello all, I know that this issue has come up before, but I read all the previous posts regarding thread safety and haven''t come up with a solution. I''m spawning lots of threads in a backgroundrb worker that each do things with activerecord models. I get the connection lost to mysql server exception about 90% of the time, with my process working by sheer luck the other 10%.

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813 Summary: Missing thread safety Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy:

http://llvm.org/PR5184 describes two problems with thread-safety in the lazy JIT compiler, the first of which is quite hard to fix if we can fix it at all. Could the people who currently use the lazy compiler speak up either here or on the bug and say what they think the path forward should be? I'm not volunteering to implement the whole thing, but I keep having to modify the JIT, and knowing

Hi all, Both the rails book (1st Ed) and the docs on the rails site (*and* the Mongrel FAQ) tell me that rails (& ActionPack /ActiveRecord) is not threadsafe. Since I need lots of worker threads in the app I''m working on (details at the end of this mail) this poses quite a problem for me. Is the lack of thread safety a conscious design decision (kind of understandable for rails

Hello, In Rubinius we're seeing an occasional crash inside LLVM that always happens inside getenv(), which is used for example when creating a MCContext (inside lib/MC/MCContext.cpp, it checks getenv("AS_SECURE_LOG_FILE")). The problem is that getenv() and friends aren't thread safe and Rubinius provides a multithreaded system. We can relatively easily get locking setup around

Hello, I have a patch to DSA you may be interested in. I thought I'd post this to llvmdev so it will be archived and googeable in case others need it, even if you decide to not merge this into mainline :-) Here are the highlights: * I refactored StdLibDataStructures::processFunction into processFunction and processCallSite to remove a lot of copy/pasted code. I also moved the libAction

So I've made code to invoke the getfunctionaddress() in parallel. I did verify that the code was good, by substituting getfunctionaddress() with a bunch bogus computations. It seems that the code with getfunctionaddress() is being serialized. Is there a giant lock somewhere per executionengine? I have one execution engine that holds all the modules. Going through the llvm-dev list archives,

I've been playing with OrcJIT a bit, and from the looks of it I can (like in the previous JIT I suppose?) ask for a function to be re generated. If I've given the address of the function that LLVM gave me to an external party, do "I" need to ensure thread-safety? Or is it safe to ask OrcJIT to re generate code at that address and everything will work magically? I'm

> On Dec 20, 2016, at 9:13 AM, koffie drinker via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to speed up the JIT time with llvm (3.9.1). > So far i've implemented the object cache, used FastISel and disabled optimizations. I can’t help with the rest, but just wanted to mention that totally disabling the IR optimizations is not necessarily

Hi Sanjoy, >> (1) Replacing function bodies at the same address is impossible if the >> function is already on the stack: You'd be replacing a definition that >> you're later going to return through. > > If the function you wish to replace is active on the stack, you can > replace the return PC that was going to return into that active frame > with a PC

Hi, I'm trying to speed up the JIT time with llvm (3.9.1). So far i've implemented the object cache, used FastISel and disabled optimizations. Jit time is still too slow for my purpose (I do have a lot of code to Jit). http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threads-and-the-jit states that we can invoke ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction() concurrently. This function was replaced

-- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -------------- next part -------------- >From 8bef0ef3f3a65360f9fa6ccebb62c21a8463d5fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard

Hello, I have a class Person class Persoon < ActiveRecord::Base set_table_name "Persoon" set_primary_key "p_persoon" has_many :adres, :class_name => "Adres" composed_of :name, :class_name => Name, :mapping => [ [:naam,:naam], [:voornaam,:voornaam], [:voornaam2,:voornaam2], [:persnickname,:persnickname], [:perssortname,:perssortname] ] def

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com Resolution|