Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #91550 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-09-06 20:15 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-10-04 18:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 665 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-06 20:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-06 18:44 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 04:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-07 00:18 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-07 10:44 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 18:39 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-07 17:27 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-07 11:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 12:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-07 12:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 12:58 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-07 13:31 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 13:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-07 21:13 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 12:35 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 20:24 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-07 20:53 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 07:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-08 14:54 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 05:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-09 17:54 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 19:26 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-09 13:42 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 21:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 10:57 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-10 06:51 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 17:46 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-10 19:08 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 18:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:13 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-10 21:38 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 04:02 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-10 20:33 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 21:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 15:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 15:49 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-11 18:20 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 18:34 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 17:06 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-20 01:14 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-20 13:32 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-10 09:32 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:14 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-10 18:50 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 21:42 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-11 23:58 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-18 20:11 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-10 18:05 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 11:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 21:17 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 12:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 21:55 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 12:59 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 13:00 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 10:58 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 12:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-09 13:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 10:59 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:09 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 16:29 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 12:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 04:28 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 22:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 11:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 11:33 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 20:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 15:55 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-13 11:53 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-13 16:23 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-14 14:37 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-14 16:52 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-15 21:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 10:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-16 05:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 16:07 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-16 13:23 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 19:38 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-16 11:46 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 05:45 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:25 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:30 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:42 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:52 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 12:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:05 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:08 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 10:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 20:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:16 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:51 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-17 19:20 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 21:29 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-17 19:36 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:06 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 17:30 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 19:36 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-18 20:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 10:46 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 02:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 11:36 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-19 07:48 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 14:11 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 15:41 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 16:41 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 19:50 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-19 18:42 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:38 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 20:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-20 07:53 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:03 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-19 13:49 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 16:14 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-19 18:45 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 15:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 21:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-20 07:54 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 15:18 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-20 14:20 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 16:31 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 11:53 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-20 22:23 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 18:46 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 18:56 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 19:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 19:11 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-20 09:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 11:54 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-20 12:36 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-20 14:02 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 21:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-21 04:46 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 21:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 01:23 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 21:13 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 01:04 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:13 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 05:41 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-20 18:46 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 05:42 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 21:24 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 09:47 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:19 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:28 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-21 23:14 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 06:39 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-22 07:31 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 14:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-22 18:31 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 06:38 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 23:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-23 09:40 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 11:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 05:57 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-21 07:36 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 14:40 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-21 15:05 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 16:17 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:25 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:29 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 17:18 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 17:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-21 18:42 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 23:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 15:28 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 15:31 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:29 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 17:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 21:09 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-19 09:55 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-19 21:11 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 20:59 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 21:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-19 18:47 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-20 20:22 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 09:58 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 10:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-21 07:42 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-21 14:54 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-21 22:25 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 06:40 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-22 07:30 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-22 04:58 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-22 16:27 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 10:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 19:50 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-22 21:58 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 20:33 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 01:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:02 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 02:59 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 05:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-21 15:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 07:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-21 20:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-21 18:39 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-21 14:44 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-22 13:05 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 14:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:43 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:40 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 14:34 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-21 14:56 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 17:04 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:56 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:30 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 10:37 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-21 22:21 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:31 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 10:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-22 22:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 20:22 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 15:47 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:07 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 17:34 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 19:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:23 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:22 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:11 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:02 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-21 22:50 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 06:41 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-22 05:15 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 08:52 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 10:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 19:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-22 18:14 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-22 03:03 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-22 22:23 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-17 19:49 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:16 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 17:53 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 20:08 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 18:15 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:26 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:25 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 13:02 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-16 16:34 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 05:57 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 10:46 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 18:02 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 13:40 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:04 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 14:26 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:32 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 14:35 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:46 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:43 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:27 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-17 18:49 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:51 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:53 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:59 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 13:23 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:09 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-17 19:22 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 15:50 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-17 13:37 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:06 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:27 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 15:41 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-18 00:29 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:18 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-18 08:13 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-18 21:04 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:14 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 18:07 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 20:14 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-18 19:42 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:16 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 04:05 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:11 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 05:50 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 23:19 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 23:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 07:59 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 10:47 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 16:53 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 19:53 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 12:17 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:36 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-19 21:08 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 05:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-20 03:52 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 21:03 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 12:36 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-20 21:09 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 14:15 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 05:46 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-20 21:25 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 09:51 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:34 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:32 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-21 21:18 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 04:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:56 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-18 14:59 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 17:19 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:57 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 14:37 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 20:49 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-17 11:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-17 15:43 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:18 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-18 08:11 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 14:45 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 13:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 13:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-17 16:11 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-17 16:01 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 07:20 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 12:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-18 20:30 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 05:17 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-18 22:14 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-19 10:50 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 11:29 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-20 20:42 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-21 09:49 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-21 22:58 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 06:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-22 05:34 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 08:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 20:12 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-22 18:38 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 06:41 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 22:59 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 08:34 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 08:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 10:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-23 11:20 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 14:23 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 11:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 11:53 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 19:59 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 20:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 10:08 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 07:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 13:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 08:01 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 14:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 12:47 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 01:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 21:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:00 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-25 07:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 14:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-25 19:29 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 06:36 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 04:52 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 11:11 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 07:23 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:36 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-26 15:23 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 17:31 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 18:38 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 07:23 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-26 15:24 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 17:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 18:40 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 21:46 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 14:02 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-29 23:57 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 08:07 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-30 14:06 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-01 07:00 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-10-01 13:18 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-01 21:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-10-01 15:45 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 05:50 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-10-02 07:56 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 14:00 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-10-02 08:04 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 15:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 12:18 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-01 19:19 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 05:51 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-02 22:24 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 19:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-02 23:30 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 21:24 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-03 06:19 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-04 22:03 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 04:40 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-10-05 07:56 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-05 12:19 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-05 21:29 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-08 06:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-13 22:51 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 19:07 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 12:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-30 12:32 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 12:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 13:24 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-30 21:09 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 20:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-01 07:01 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-10-01 16:41 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-01 19:00 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-10-01 17:04 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 14:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:11 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 20:56 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:15 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 15:25 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:56 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-27 22:37 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 15:59 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 16:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 16:15 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-27 22:27 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 15:57 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 16:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-28 04:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 13:24 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-28 04:46 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 14:46 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-28 06:09 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-28 14:34 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 14:03 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-29 05:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 14:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-29 05:37 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 16:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-29 08:03 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 17:08 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 11:44 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 20:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 11:57 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:00 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 21:09 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:26 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:27 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 21:31 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:34 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 21:37 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:36 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 21:43 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 22:14 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 13:28 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-29 20:44 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 11:15 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 15:51 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 18:04 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 19:26 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-30 19:10 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-07 22:17 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 12:45 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 18:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 16:46 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 18:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 21:20 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 18:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 20:47 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-25 21:53 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 21:01 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 21:22 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 12:46 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-24 17:04 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 22:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 23:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-26 09:05 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 12:58 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-26 13:58 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:11 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:17 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael Fisher <michaelsfishers61@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:34 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-22 22:22 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 06:42 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-23 15:00 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 17:23 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 20:05 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 10:09 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-24 02:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 12:05 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-25 10:20 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:27 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-27 00:36 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-25 10:15 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:53 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 07:18 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-24 04:18 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 13:34 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-24 04:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 13:55 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:42 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 08:04 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-24 05:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 14:35 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-24 05:47 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 14:51 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 21:18 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:02 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-25 07:15 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 18:11 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 10:47 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-25 18:08 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 15:07 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-25 19:29 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 20:34 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-09-24 12:27 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-09-24 17:19 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 14:32 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-24 19:00 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-09-24 19:35 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 18:43 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 12:53 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:36 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-22 22:50 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 06:44 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-23 17:58 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 19:00 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 12:59 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:45 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 19:03 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 13:00 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 11:43 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 04:10 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-23 19:19 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 01:06 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 18:45 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-25 15:51 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 18:21 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 18:50 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 10:34 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 07:42 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 14:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-26 15:25 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 17:30 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-26 08:52 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 18:08 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-26 10:00 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:30 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 21:32 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:17 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 17:09 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:33 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 23:16 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 21:10 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 19:17 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 21:40 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-28 18:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-26 17:01 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-09-26 17:13 +0000
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-26 13:21 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-09-26 20:45 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-28 21:38 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 11:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 13:29 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2023-09-08 18:55 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-06 23:33 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 08:53 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 00:16 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 14:17 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 12:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 21:27 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 12:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 22:00 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-08 20:14 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 18:05 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 18:10 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-09 14:00 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 11:41 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 19:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-10 17:58 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 20:48 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-09-09 13:44 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 11:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 11:45 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-09-07 12:55 +0300
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 18:22 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 18:45 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 12:49 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 12:53 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-24 20:18 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-25 00:06 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 13:30 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-29 23:32 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 04:39 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2023-10-02 22:28 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-03 11:04 +0200
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-10-03 23:28 -0400
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-10-03 20:38 -0700
Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-10-04 18:04 +0200
Page 23 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 34 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf9t1e$137hd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92268 |
On 9/30/2023 12:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: >>> Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: >>>> >>>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without allocating any >>>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or >>>>> slow path. >>>> >>>> ... on Linux with signals. >>>> >>> With user-space sync primitives on any system. >> >> A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with >> the help of the kernel. > > You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument > isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. > > The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel > object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, > and not a very good one. > > Do *you* have ADHD is the question. > It kind of seems that way, then I sometimes think Bonita is doing it on purpose. Accusing me of trolling when I suggest using a race detector. To be quite honest, I don't really trust Bonita's code at all. Then it wants me to scour through its rather cryptic code and find all of the bugs, for free. Strange.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe50c473-df9e-4738-819b-56fd06540a4dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92268 |
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:07:57 PM UTC+3, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: > >> Bonita Montero wrote: > >>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: > >>> > >>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without allocating any > >>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or > >>>> slow path. > >>> > >>> ... on Linux with signals. > >>> > >> With user-space sync primitives on any system. > > > > A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with > > the help of the kernel. > You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument > isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. > > The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel > object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, > and not a very good one. > > Do *you* have ADHD is the question. > -- > TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr > Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal > Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca > NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted. Another point is that "one user-mode lock per one local static object" is also only one point in the design space. Possibly, not a bad point, if you have user-mode lock as small as futex on Linux or or even as (slightly bigger) SRW Lock on Windows's, but it seems that none of major C++ toolsets had chosen this particular design point. I don't know why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf9u55$13ggj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92272 |
On 9/30/2023 12:32 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:07:57 PM UTC+3, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: >>>> Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: >>>>> >>>>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without allocating any >>>>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or >>>>>> slow path. >>>>> >>>>> ... on Linux with signals. >>>>> >>>> With user-space sync primitives on any system. >>> >>> A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with >>> the help of the kernel. >> You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument >> isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. >> >> The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel >> object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, >> and not a very good one. >> >> Do *you* have ADHD is the question. >> -- >> TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr >> Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal >> Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca >> NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted. > > Another point is that "one user-mode lock per one local static object" > is also only one point in the design space. Possibly, not a bad point, if > you have user-mode lock as small as futex on Linux or or even as (slightly > bigger) SRW Lock on Windows's, but it seems that none of major C++ toolsets > had chosen this particular design point. I don't know why. > Probably has something to with with an intra-process mutex failing on lock even though the user code is 100% perfectly fine is just a really, really bad idea. Bonita seems to really enjoy projecting its erroneous ideas on others. Humm...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ufa061$13ggj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92272 |
On 9/30/2023 12:32 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:07:57 PM UTC+3, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: >>>> Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: >>>>> >>>>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without allocating any >>>>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or >>>>>> slow path. >>>>> >>>>> ... on Linux with signals. >>>>> >>>> With user-space sync primitives on any system. >>> >>> A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with >>> the help of the kernel. >> You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument >> isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. >> >> The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel >> object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, >> and not a very good one. >> >> Do *you* have ADHD is the question. >> -- >> TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr >> Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal >> Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca >> NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted. > > Another point is that "one user-mode lock per one local static object" > is also only one point in the design space. Possibly, not a bad point, if > you have user-mode lock as small as futex on Linux or or even as (slightly > bigger) SRW Lock on Windows's, but it seems that none of major C++ toolsets > had chosen this particular design point. I don't know why. > Actually, one of my rw mutex algorithms allocates all of its kernel resources up front wrt the object itself. So, the rwmutex can report this condition wrt failure to create a kernel semaphore, in its constructor, not on a damn lock() op wrt contention. Fwiw, a person was kind enough to use my rwmutex work here: Notice it has no loops? :^) https://vorbrodt.blog/2019/02/14/read-write-mutex/ (check it out...) Btw, I have modeled this using several race detectors even though I know it works. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 21:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8F3SM.42015$ugs.38358@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #92274 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/30/2023 12:32 PM, Michael S wrote: >> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:07:57 PM UTC+3, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: >>>>> Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: >>>>>> >>>>>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without allocating >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or >>>>>>> slow path. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... on Linux with signals. >>>>>> >>>>> With user-space sync primitives on any system. >>>> >>>> A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with >>>> the help of the kernel. >>> You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument >>> isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. >>> >>> The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel >>> object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, >>> and not a very good one. >>> >>> Do *you* have ADHD is the question. >>> -- >>> TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr >>> Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal >>> Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca >>> NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're >>> whitelisted. >> >> Another point is that "one user-mode lock per one local static object" >> is also only one point in the design space. Possibly, not a bad point, if >> you have user-mode lock as small as futex on Linux or or even as >> (slightly >> bigger) SRW Lock on Windows's, but it seems that none of major C++ >> toolsets >> had chosen this particular design point. I don't know why. >> > > Actually, one of my rw mutex algorithms allocates all of its kernel > resources up front wrt the object itself. So, the rwmutex can report > this condition wrt failure to create a kernel semaphore, in its > constructor, not on a damn lock() op wrt contention. > > Fwiw, a person was kind enough to use my rwmutex work here: Notice it > has no loops? :^) Neat. Just curious: why do you sometimes use fetch_add with negative addend and sometimes fetch_sub? > > https://vorbrodt.blog/2019/02/14/read-write-mutex/ > (check it out...) > > Btw, I have modeled this using several race detectors even though I know > it works. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-30 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ufaqet$1csrm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92275 |
On 9/30/2023 6:09 PM, Pavel wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/30/2023 12:32 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:07:57 PM UTC+3, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2023-09-30, Bonita Montero <Bonita....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Am 30.09.2023 um 05:57 schrieb Pavel: >>>>>> Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 29.09.2023 um 03:46 schrieb Pavel: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> see my or Kaz's explanation for how it is done without >>>>>>>> allocating any >>>>>>>> kernel resource on either initialization or locking, either fast or >>>>>>>> slow path. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... on Linux with signals. >>>>>>> >>>>>> With user-space sync primitives on any system. >>>>> >>>>> A mutex may lead to a sleeping thread, that's only possible with >>>>> the help of the kernel. >>>> You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument >>>> isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. >>>> >>>> The argument is that there is no need to allocate a kernel >>>> object per mutex. That is only one point in the design space, >>>> and not a very good one. >>>> >>>> Do *you* have ADHD is the question. >>>> -- >>>> TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr >>>> Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal >>>> Mastodon: @Kazi...@mstdn.ca >>>> NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're >>>> whitelisted. >>> >>> Another point is that "one user-mode lock per one local static object" >>> is also only one point in the design space. Possibly, not a bad >>> point, if >>> you have user-mode lock as small as futex on Linux or or even as >>> (slightly >>> bigger) SRW Lock on Windows's, but it seems that none of major C++ >>> toolsets >>> had chosen this particular design point. I don't know why. >>> >> >> Actually, one of my rw mutex algorithms allocates all of its kernel >> resources up front wrt the object itself. So, the rwmutex can report >> this condition wrt failure to create a kernel semaphore, in its >> constructor, not on a damn lock() op wrt contention. >> >> Fwiw, a person was kind enough to use my rwmutex work here: Notice it >> has no loops? :^) > Neat. > > Just curious: why do you sometimes use fetch_add with negative addend > and sometimes fetch_sub? Good question. Well, iirc, way back when I was experimenting and designing it I wanted to test fetch_add _and_ fetch_sub with Relacy which was in its fairly early stages then. I had _pure_ loopless bakery algorithms on my mind for some other interesting reasons... Anyway, my original code used all fetch_add, but I altered it to use fetch_sub into the unit testing. I was originally building this on an x86, and using all LOCK XADD's. When I presented it, iirc, I accidentally showed my Relacy code that had fetch_sub. This is not exactly consistent! But I just said, ahhh okay, it still works. Sorry about that. It's me forgetting that I used fetch_sub in one of my unit tests, and forgot to change them back _before_ I presented it. Argh! ;^o Actually, I can kind of remember when I actually altered a single fetch_add to fetch_sub in one place: _____________ [...] if (m_wrstate.fetch_sub(1, std::memory_order_acquire) < 1) [...] _____________ Which can be replaced with: _____________ [...] if (m_wrstate.fetch_add(-1, std::memory_order_acquire) < 1) [...] _____________ It's nice that you noticed it! Bringing back memories. Just one of my bakery algorithm experiments. I posted it way back over on the intel threading forums, but that group does not seem to exist or has changed over the years. Thanks for the memories, Pavel! Thanks for taking an interesting interest. :^) Fwiw, this also brings back memories about strong CAS and weak CAS. Strong CAA can be used in a loopless bakery algorithm, but not necessarily with weak. Weak can fail spuriously and require a loop. This loop would break my loopless requirements. Also, I remember putting a restriction on myself that I have to do it without using CAS at all, weak or strong! :^) Btw, my rwmutex has a pretty decent and rather slim read lock/unlock... :^D Weak vs Strong CAS is an interesting topic in and of itself. > >> >> https://vorbrodt.blog/2019/02/14/read-write-mutex/ >> (check it out...) >> >> Btw, I have modeled this using several race detectors even though I >> know it works. :^) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 07:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ufauf8$1dfn9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92268 |
Am 30.09.2023 um 21:07 schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument > isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. On Linux. On Windows the kernel handle for the thread might have been closed so you have no other way to sleep than for an event or semaphore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20231001093836.174@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #92281 |
On 2023-10-01, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > Am 30.09.2023 um 21:07 schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > >> You keep returning to this in circles, forgetting that the argument >> isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. > > On Linux. What on Linux? The argument isn't that help from the kernel isn't required. It is, on Linux and Windows. > On Windows the kernel handle for the thread might have been > closed so you have no other way to sleep than for an event or semaphore. What? Who said anything about a thread handle? How does this relate to anything? A "handle per thread" isn't a handle to the thread. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ufc8j7$1lfoh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92293 |
Am 01.10.2023 um 18:41 schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > What on Linux? The argument isn't that help from the kernel isn't > required. It is, on Linux and Windows. If you want to go to sleep while another contender holds the lock you need the kernel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-10-01 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20231001100335.821@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #92294 |
On 2023-10-01, Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > Am 01.10.2023 um 18:41 schrieb Kaz Kylheku: > >> What on Linux? The argument isn't that help from the kernel isn't >> required. It is, on Linux and Windows. > > If you want to go to sleep while another contender holds the lock > you need the kernel. I have no idea why you're repeating my point, but okay. Maybe the double negative in that first sentence went over your head? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-26 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uevdl0$2ligo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92135 |
On 9/26/2023 5:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: > >> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >> a bad implementation. > > The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. > You can't create an arbitrary number of that. Barf! God damn it Bonita! I might have to try to refrain from reading your posts. PUKE!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00d0c42f-7728-4a7b-9611-3f24f98735ffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92135 |
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: > > But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows > > for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being > > a bad implementation. > The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. > You can't create an arbitrary number of that. Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented on various versions Windows (x86-64). Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once and was not explicitly deleted after that. Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they were ever waited on or not. I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction method in the API.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf29ag$3aeta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92193 |
On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>> a bad implementation. >> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. > > Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented > on various versions Windows (x86-64). > > Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization > does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were > waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once > and was not explicitly deleted after that. Well, shit happens. Yuck. > > Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they > were ever waited on or not. > I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as > Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. > > Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of > Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction > method in the API. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-28 20:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <AhpRM.327525$ZXz4.22293@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #92194 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>>> a bad implementation. >>> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >>> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. >> >> Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are >> implemented >> on various versions Windows (x86-64). >> >> Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - >> initialization >> does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first >> wait, if there were >> waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that >> waited until once >> and was not explicitly deleted after that. > > Well, shit happens. Yuck. 2008 is before 2012; hence the requirement for infallible synchronization for C++ static initialization did not exist back then, at least not officially. When the new standard appeared, Microsoft implemented better sync. primitives. That's what I already wrote somewhere above: it's not the standard that needs to honor platform limitations; it's the platforms that will honor a reasonable spec of the standard (or leave unfulfilled the unreasonable one). Obviously, infallible sync for static init is not unreasonable at all. > > >> >> Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not >> matter if they >> were ever waited on or not. >> I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as >> Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. >> >> Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any >> variant of >> Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction >> method in the API. >> >> >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf29h6$3afmc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92193 |
On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>> a bad implementation. >> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. > > Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented > on various versions Windows (x86-64). > > Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization > does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were > waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once > and was not explicitly deleted after that. I cannot remember kernel keyed events were implemented in win7, I am pretty sure they were. Have you ever messed around with those before? > > Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they > were ever waited on or not. > I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as > Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. > > Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of > Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction > method in the API. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31e3bb97-39fc-4541-92da-e4088679d436n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92195 |
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:15:22 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > >> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: > >>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows > >>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being > >>> a bad implementation. > >> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. > >> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. > > > > Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented > > on various versions Windows (x86-64). > > > > Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization > > does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were > > waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once > > and was not explicitly deleted after that. > I cannot remember kernel keyed events were implemented in win7, I am > pretty sure they were. Have you ever messed around with those before? I have no idea what the phrase "kernel keyed events" means. > > > > Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they > > were ever waited on or not. > > I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as > > Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. > > > > Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of > > Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction > > method in the API. > > > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf2bve$3arar$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92197 |
On 9/27/2023 3:25 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:15:22 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>>>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>>>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>>>> a bad implementation. >>>> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >>>> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. >>> >>> Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented >>> on various versions Windows (x86-64). >>> >>> Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization >>> does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were >>> waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once >>> and was not explicitly deleted after that. >> I cannot remember kernel keyed events were implemented in win7, I am >> pretty sure they were. Have you ever messed around with those before? > > I have no idea what the phrase "kernel keyed events" means. There is a sync object in windows called a keyed event, however I think its only for the kernel. Iirc, I learned about it in a sysinternals magazine. Forgot the issue number. It is a special type of Windows Event object. > >>> >>> Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they >>> were ever waited on or not. >>> I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as >>> Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. >>> >>> Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of >>> Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction >>> method in the API. >>> >>> >>> >>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf29r4$3afmc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92193 |
On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>> a bad implementation. >> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. > > Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented > on various versions Windows (x86-64). > > Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization > does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were > waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once > and was not explicitly deleted after that. > > Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they > were ever waited on or not. > I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as > Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. > > Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of > Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction > method in the API. > > > > I need to examine the kernel for nt4 again: https://github.com/ZoloZiak/WinNT4/tree/master/private/ntos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <M82RM.53538$2_m.14475@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #92196 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>>> a bad implementation. >>> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >>> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. >> >> Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented >> on various versions Windows (x86-64). >> >> Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization >> does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were >> waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once >> and was not explicitly deleted after that. >> >> Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they >> were ever waited on or not. >> I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as >> Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. >> >> Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of >> Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction >> method in the API. >> >> >> >> > >I need to examine the kernel for nt4 again: > >https://github.com/ZoloZiak/WinNT4/tree/master/private/ntos Why? It's a quarter century old. Did it even support threads?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-27 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uf2bhu$3arar$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92199 |
On 9/27/2023 3:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> On 9/27/2023 2:48 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 3:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 26.09.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Richard Damon: >>>>> But it doesn't NEED to be expected, and doing it in a way that allows >>>>> for failure when you can do it in a way that can't fail is just being >>>>> a bad implementation. >>>> The slow path always is backed by a binary semaphore of the kernel. >>>> You can't create an arbitrary number of that. >>> >>> Today I tested how Critical Sections and Exclusive SRW locks are implemented >>> on various versions Windows (x86-64). >>> >>> Critical sections on Win7/Ws2008 implemented as you guessed it - initialization >>> does not create kernel objects. Kernel object is created on first wait, if there were >>> waits. And indeed there is 1 kernel object per critical section that waited until once >>> and was not explicitly deleted after that. >>> >>> Critical sections on Ws2016 never create kernel objects. It does not matter if they >>> were ever waited on or not. >>> I didn't test on win10, but its essentially the same kernel as >>> Ws2016, so I expect the same behavior with very high certainty. >>> >>> Exclusive SRW locks never create kernel objects as well, on any variant of >>> Windows OS, but that was already obvious from the absence of destruction >>> method in the API. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> I need to examine the kernel for nt4 again: >> >> https://github.com/ZoloZiak/WinNT4/tree/master/private/ntos > > Why? It's a quarter century old. Did it even support threads? > NT 4? Yup, it supported threads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web