Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #81355 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-09-20 22:43 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-10-28 20:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-20 22:43 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 10:38 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 20:29 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 20:30 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 18:48 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-24 18:56 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 07:24 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 12:28 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 15:57 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 13:59 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 16:09 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 17:13 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 19:15 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 17:22 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-26 05:46 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 01:19 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 13:50 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 10:08 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-10-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 10:07 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-25 13:34 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-26 05:48 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 22:46 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 08:34 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 00:05 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 12:06 +0200
Re: Tricky ... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-28 16:05 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 18:46 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 14:02 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 14:42 -0700
Re: Tricky ... red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-09-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 19:28 -0700
Re: Tricky ... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-29 08:35 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:42 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:04 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:41 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:05 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 03:33 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 18:43 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 19:47 -0700
Re: Tricky ... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-30 09:10 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 18:00 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 18:01 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 02:32 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:05 -0700
Re: Tricky ... HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com - 2021-09-30 09:35 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 13:19 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 14:44 +0200
Re: Tricky ... red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-09-27 10:54 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 14:06 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 16:09 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 06:57 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 22:28 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 08:33 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 00:03 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 12:05 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 21:57 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 08:16 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 01:19 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 12:39 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 03:32 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-10-01 04:43 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 14:59 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 13:10 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 13:04 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 20:53 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 14:24 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 22:13 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 17:14 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 17:16 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-02 01:44 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-02 02:14 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 19:33 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 06:39 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 07:35 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:49 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:00 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:12 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:38 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:39 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:46 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:50 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:52 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:01 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 09:12 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:26 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 11:16 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 03:03 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 13:06 +0200
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 13:07 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 18:22 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 09:38 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 12:29 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 21:59 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-10 06:42 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 22:04 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 13:20 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 06:40 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:14 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 07:36 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:55 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:00 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:08 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:38 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:41 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:44 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:47 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 23:51 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 08:53 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:04 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 09:13 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:20 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 09:30 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:32 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 10:27 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-04 11:31 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-05 07:13 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 12:22 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 08:36 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 00:31 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 12:15 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 12:21 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 20:14 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 07:52 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 12:56 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:24 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 09:31 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:32 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 10:27 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 01:36 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 10:57 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 17:19 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 02:17 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 02:45 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 20:01 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 03:24 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 13:13 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 08:37 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 01:15 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 12:16 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 20:16 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-07 14:27 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 23:27 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 15:24 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 07:53 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 12:53 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:31 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-02 00:52 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 06:55 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 22:27 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-27 22:49 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 02:31 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 20:14 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 08:33 +0200
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-28 00:06 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-29 12:09 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-30 13:00 -0700
Re: Tricky ... RadicalRabbit@theburrow.co.uk - 2021-10-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Tricky ... RadicalRabbit@theburrow.co.uk - 2021-10-03 08:25 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-03 21:06 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 14:33 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 04:42 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-06 18:11 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-07 02:20 +0000
Re: Tricky ... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-07 22:26 +1300
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 14:07 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 13:07 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-01 13:08 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-01 20:54 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 13:33 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-03 21:07 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-03 14:51 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-04 04:44 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-08 13:05 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-09 07:29 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 19:55 -0700
Re: Tricky ... Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-11 05:21 +0000
Re: Tricky ... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-10-28 13:49 -0700
Re: Tricky ... "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2021-10-28 20:29 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-09 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sjts86$3j4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81955 |
On 10/9/2021 9:42 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 09.10.2021 um 22:13 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/9/2021 12:59 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> So allowing a fast and a slow path gives the best of both worlds. >>> >>> Am I talking to a complete idiot here ? >>> >>> We're not discussing what's the best while synchronizing threads >>> but what's lock-free and what's not. And having a slow path makes >>> an algorithm not lock-free. >>> >>> Read the WP-article: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm : >>> "In computer science, an algorithm is called non-blocking >>> if failure or suspension of any thread cannot cause failure >>> _or suspension of another thread_". >>> >> >> You think lock-free is crap. ... > > Everything lock-free except from lock-free stacks is crap. > Whatever you say man! ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj7qhr$1b21$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81698 |
On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly placed >>>>>> membars. >>>>> >>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>> you have to poll. >>>> >>>> Why? >>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >> >> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? > > If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it > spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except > from lock-free stacks. So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8ns7$qom$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81719 |
Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly placed >>>>>>> membars. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>> >>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >> >> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >> from lock-free stacks. > > So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the lock-free stacks are never polled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 22:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8poj$v0b$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81736 |
On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly placed >>>>>>>> membars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>> >>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>> >>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>> from lock-free stacks. >> >> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? > > Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the > lock-free stacks are never polled. > Huh? What are you talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8pqt$v0b$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81736 |
On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly placed >>>>>>>> membars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>> >>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>> >>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>> from lock-free stacks. >> >> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? > > Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the > lock-free stacks are never polled. > Never polled? A slow-path on a lock-free stack can be waited on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 07:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8r4k$ans$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81740 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 07:14 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly placed >>>>>>>>> membars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? >>>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>>> >>>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>>> >>>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>>> from lock-free stacks. >>> >>> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? >> >> Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the >> lock-free stacks are never polled. >> > > Never polled? A slow-path on a lock-free stack can be waited on. Then it isn't lock-free. I think I'm talking to a complete moron here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8s7k$1m0n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81743 |
On 10/1/2021 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 07:14 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient bidirectional >>>>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly >>>>>>>>>> placed membars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no data >>>>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>>>> >>>>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>>>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>>>> from lock-free stacks. >>>> >>>> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? >>> >>> Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the >>> lock-free stacks are never polled. >>> >> >> Never polled? A slow-path on a lock-free stack can be waited on. > > Then it isn't lock-free. > I think I'm talking to a complete moron here. Fast-path lock/wait-free, slow-path might have to hit the kernel to wait on certain conditions. You seem to have never differentiated between the two possible paths?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8si7$hcv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81745 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 07:55 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 07:14 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>>>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient >>>>>>>>>>> bidirectional >>>>>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly >>>>>>>>>>> placed membars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no >>>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>>>>> >>>>>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>>>>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>>>>> from lock-free stacks. >>>>> >>>>> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? Why? >>>> >>>> Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the >>>> lock-free stacks are never polled. >>>> >>> >>> Never polled? A slow-path on a lock-free stack can be waited on. >> >> Then it isn't lock-free. >> I think I'm talking to a complete moron here. > > > Fast-path lock/wait-free, slow-path might have to hit the kernel to wait > on certain conditions. You seem to have never differentiated between the > two possible paths? Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. And a slow-path involves kernel-locking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8t08$1t5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81748 |
On 10/1/2021 11:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 07:55 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 10:36 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 07:14 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 9:40 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> On 10/1/2021 5:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 13:43 schrieb Öö Tiib: >>>>>>>> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 04:32:18 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am 30.09.2021 um 22:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2021 3:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a bit vague. One can create highly efficient >>>>>>>>>>>> bidirectional >>>>>>>>>>>> communication between two threads using two wait-free >>>>>>>>>>>> single-producer/single-consumer queues without using any atomic >>>>>>>>>>>> RMW's, just atomic loads, stores, and some some cleverly >>>>>>>>>>>> placed membars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When you use wait-free or lock-free algorithms and there's no >>>>>>>>>>> data >>>>>>>>>>> you have to poll. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>> Because you don't have to wait in the kernel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What a thread does when its input queue is empty? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it hasn't anything other to do than "waiting" for a new entry it >>>>>>> spins. Lock-free and wait-free datastructures are idiocracy except >>>>>>> from lock-free stacks. >>>>>> >>>>>> So a lock-free stack is okay with you, but not a lock-free queue? >>>>>> Why? >>>>> >>>>> Because the use-cases of lock-free stacks are so that the >>>>> lock-free stacks are never polled. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Never polled? A slow-path on a lock-free stack can be waited on. >>> >>> Then it isn't lock-free. >>> I think I'm talking to a complete moron here. >> >> >> Fast-path lock/wait-free, slow-path might have to hit the kernel to >> wait on certain conditions. You seem to have never differentiated >> between the two possible paths? > > Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. > And a slow-path involves kernel-locking. One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8upl$ti5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81749 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be used > to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty condition, well, > it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack is empty, we can > wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8uvd$gp9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81753 |
On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be used >> to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty condition, well, >> it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack is empty, we can >> wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. > > If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. Ever heard about doing something else, instead of waiting in kernel land? I have some older code that can show this. Its the type of thinking were... Well, why should I wait when I can do something else. Actually, it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8v4q$gp9$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81756 |
On 10/1/2021 11:41 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> >>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty condition, >>> well, it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack is empty, we >>> can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >> >> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. > > Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. Ever heard > about doing something else, instead of waiting in kernel land? I have > some older code that can show this. Its the type of thinking were... > Well, why should I wait when I can do something else. Actually, it works. Think of a slow-path as being when a lock is locked; shit need to wait. And a fast-path as being able to acquire it without waiting. Well, instead of waiting, do something else? It can be coded, so to speak using some interesting logic. ;^) I am trying to teach you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8va0$g9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81756 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> >>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty condition, >>> well, it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack is empty, we >>> can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >> >> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. > > Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... Lock-free is without locking all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8vgv$gp9$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81759 |
On 10/1/2021 11:47 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> >>>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty >>>> condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack >>>> is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >>> >>> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. >> >> Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... > > Lock-free is without locking all the time. > Think of fast path vs slow path. You have a lot to learn!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8vld$260$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81761 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:47 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> >>>>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>>>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty >>>>> condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the queue/stack >>>>> is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >>>> >>>> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. >>> >>> Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... >> >> Lock-free is without locking all the time. >> > > Think of fast path vs slow path. You have a lot to learn! I know the difference. But lock-free algorithms are _always_ non-blocking and _never_ have a slow path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 00:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj90am$tlh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81763 |
On 10/1/2021 11:53 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:47 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> >>>>>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>>>>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty >>>>>> condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the >>>>>> queue/stack is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >>>>> >>>>> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. >>>> >>>> Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... >>> >>> Lock-free is without locking all the time. >>> >> >> Think of fast path vs slow path. You have a lot to learn! > > I know the difference. But lock-free algorithms are > _always_ non-blocking and _never_ have a slow path. ARGH! You are a pain to talk to. There is a way to use this even in mutex logic. The slow path of a mutex is when its locked, and we have a choice to wait, or perhaps try to do something else... Think about it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 09:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj90pt$8fe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81765 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 09:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:53 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 11:47 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> >>>>>>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can be >>>>>>> used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty >>>>>>> condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the >>>>>>> queue/stack is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... >>>> >>>> Lock-free is without locking all the time. >>>> >>> >>> Think of fast path vs slow path. You have a lot to learn! >> >> I know the difference. But lock-free algorithms are >> _always_ non-blocking and _never_ have a slow path. > > ARGH! You are a pain to talk to. There is a way to use this even in > mutex logic. The slow path of a mutex is when its locked, and we have a > choice to wait, or perhaps try to do something else... Think about it! A mutex isn't a lock-free structure because is _also_ has a slow path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj918n$1cdk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81767 |
On 10/2/2021 12:13 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 09:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:53 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 11:47 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:41 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One cal use lock-free in user-space! A futex or eventcount can >>>>>>>> be used to help it out. You know, if it must wait on an empty >>>>>>>> condition, well, it can without spinning around. If the >>>>>>>> queue/stack is empty, we can wait! Or not. Up to the programmer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have a slow path you don't have a lock-free algorithm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not? The slow-path can be avoided, from time to time. ... >>>>> >>>>> Lock-free is without locking all the time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Think of fast path vs slow path. You have a lot to learn! >>> >>> I know the difference. But lock-free algorithms are >>> _always_ non-blocking and _never_ have a slow path. >> >> ARGH! You are a pain to talk to. There is a way to use this even in >> mutex logic. The slow path of a mutex is when its locked, and we have >> a choice to wait, or perhaps try to do something else... Think >> about it! > > A mutex isn't a lock-free structure because is _also_ has a > slow path. It can have a very nice fast-path... Have you ever created one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj91rh$eeh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81768 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 09:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> A mutex isn't a lock-free structure because is _also_ has a >> slow path. > > It can have a very nice fast-path... Have you ever created one? That's not what we're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj91uk$1fi7$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81771 |
On 10/2/2021 12:30 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 09:20 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >>> A mutex isn't a lock-free structure because is _also_ has a >>> slow path. >> >> It can have a very nice fast-path... Have you ever created one? > > That's not what we're talking about. > I am talking about the nice fast-path being totally lock/wait-free. It can! Think about it some more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web