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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8sh8$hcv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81744 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 07:49 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 10:35 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 07:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 9:39 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:04 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. >>>>> >>>>> Huh? Ever heard of a futex, or an eventcount? >>>> >>>> Lock-free is without any kernel-structures and polling only. >>>> No futex. >>> >>> Lock-free on the fast-path... Ever heard of such a thing? Wow. >> >> There is no slow path with lock-free structures. > > Ummmm... You are just trolling me right? A slow path would be what to do > when one needs to wait, on say, an empty condition? Humm... Why do you > troll? 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 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8t85$1a6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81747 |
On 10/1/2021 11:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 07:49 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 10:35 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 07:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 9:39 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 01.10.2021 um 22:04 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Huh? Ever heard of a futex, or an eventcount? >>>>> >>>>> Lock-free is without any kernel-structures and polling only. >>>>> No futex. >>>> >>>> Lock-free on the fast-path... Ever heard of such a thing? Wow. >>> >>> There is no slow path with lock-free structures. >> >> Ummmm... You are just trolling me right? A slow path would be what to >> do when one needs to wait, on say, an empty condition? Humm... Why do >> you troll? > > Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? > And a slow-path involves kernel-locking. Yes. So, a lock/wait-free fast-path in user-space can be realized, right? Think about it, then think about it again. So can a slow-path. The target usage paradigm is to use a lot more fast-paths, than slow ones... ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8uoi$ti5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81750 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. > A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. > A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8uqi$gp9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81752 |
On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. > >> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? > > And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm. WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. The programmer can decide what to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8v92$g9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81754 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> >>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >> >>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >> >> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm. > > WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. The > programmer can decide what to do. No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, i.e. no locking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-01 23:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj8vg0$gp9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81758 |
On 10/1/2021 11:46 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> >>>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >>> >>>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >>> >>> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm. >> >> WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. >> The programmer can decide what to do. > > No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, > i.e. no locking. > You seem to really love the fast-path. So do I!!!! 100% pure lock/wait-free depending on the algorihtm we are targeting. However, we can wait on slow paths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 08:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj8vjr$260$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81760 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 08:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:46 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> >>>>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >>>> >>>>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>>>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >>>> >>>> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm. >>> >>> WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. >>> The programmer can decide what to do. >> >> No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, >> i.e. no locking. >> > > You seem to really love the fast-path. So do I!!!! 100% pure > lock/wait-free depending on the algorihtm we are targeting. > However, we can wait on slow paths. Lock-free algorithms are _always_ non-blocking, so there is never any slow path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 00:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj9054$tlh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81762 |
On 10/1/2021 11:52 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 08:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:46 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> >>>>>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >>>>> >>>>>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>>>>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >>>>> >>>>> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free algorithm. >>>> >>>> WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. >>>> The programmer can decide what to do. >>> >>> No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, >>> i.e. no locking. >>> >> >> You seem to really love the fast-path. So do I!!!! 100% pure >> lock/wait-free depending on the algorihtm we are targeting. >> However, we can wait on slow paths. > > Lock-free algorithms are _always_ non-blocking, > so there is never any slow path. Have you experienced something that required you to wait on certain conditions? Call the wait path a slow-path. Make the fast-paths as fast as possible. Humm... Are you green?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 09:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj90oq$8fe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81764 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 09:01 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/1/2021 11:52 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 10/1/2021 11:46 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >>>>>> >>>>>>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>>>>>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free >>>>>> algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a slow-path. >>>>> The programmer can decide what to do. >>>> >>>> No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, >>>> i.e. no locking. >>>> >>> >>> You seem to really love the fast-path. So do I!!!! 100% pure >>> lock/wait-free depending on the algorihtm we are targeting. >>> However, we can wait on slow paths. >> >> Lock-free algorithms are _always_ non-blocking, >> so there is never any slow path. > > Have you experienced something that required you to wait on certain > conditions? Call the wait path a slow-path. Make the fast-paths as > fast as possible. Humm... Are you green? There is no slow path with lock-free algorithms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj91j5$1fi7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81766 |
On 10/2/2021 12:12 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 09:01 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/1/2021 11:52 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:50 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> On 10/1/2021 11:46 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>> On 10/1/2021 11:38 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 08:12 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lock-free is when there's no kernel-locking involved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A fast-path can be 100% pure lock/wait-free, so yes; indeed. >>>>>>>> A slow-path can involve kernel locking. Are you late to the game? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if you have kernel-locking you don't have any lock-free >>>>>>> algorithm. >>>>>> >>>>>> WRONG! Think of the difference between a fast-path and a >>>>>> slow-path. The programmer can decide what to do. >>>>> >>>>> No, not wrong. Lock-free is always without waiting in the kernel, >>>>> i.e. no locking. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You seem to really love the fast-path. So do I!!!! 100% pure >>>> lock/wait-free depending on the algorihtm we are targeting. >>>> However, we can wait on slow paths. >>> >>> Lock-free algorithms are _always_ non-blocking, >>> so there is never any slow path. >> >> Have you experienced something that required you to wait on certain >> conditions? Call the wait path a slow-path. Make the fast-paths as >> fast as possible. Humm... Are you green? > > There is no slow path with lock-free algorithms. > What about a stack-empty condition? You seem to be stunted in your thinking, for some damn reason. Are you this way on purpose????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj980k$kp6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81770 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 09:26 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> There is no slow path with lock-free algorithms. > What about a stack-empty condition? ... Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an owning thread. In the first case the thread not finding any preallocated items on the stack allocates them conventionally - and that has nothing to do with locking - and in the latter case if the thread given back the resources doesn't find something on the stack it simply doesn't empty the stack. If he would find sth. on the stack it would empty it and put back the resoruces in its local pools. So there's nothing wigh locking in either case. I'm talking to a complete moron here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sj9aom$6ah$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81781 |
On 10/2/2021 2:16 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 09:26 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >>> There is no slow path with lock-free algorithms. > >> What about a stack-empty condition? ... > > Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an > owning thread. Really, is that their only use? Why do you say that, as if its some sort of absolute? Why do you seem to project your fairly narrow views on others, me? Humm... By the way, you are making me think of a special type of per-thread allocator I created in the past, trust me, I have been there, done that. Know a lot about them. If thread Z has a node, and pushes it onto a stack, well, thread B can pick it up? no? Got it? Well, thread B does. ;^) There are many VERY fun things we can do wrt a granularity of lock/wait-free mechanisms. Try to pull your head out of the sand for a moment? Sigh. > In the first case the thread not finding any preallocated > items on the stack allocates them conventionally - and that has nothing > to do with locking - and in the latter case if the thread given back the > resources doesn't find something on the stack it simply doesn't empty > the stack. If he would find sth. on the stack it would empty it and > put back the resoruces in its local pools. > So there's nothing wigh locking in either case. > > I'm talking to a complete moron here. Argh! I actually do have experience here. You push me away. Really? I thought we could talk about these most interesting things... You have potential!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 13:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj9ef7$voj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81782 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 12:03 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an >> owning thread. > Really, is that their only use? .. Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-02 13:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sj9egq$voj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81786 |
Am 02.10.2021 um 13:06 schrieb Bonita Montero: > Am 02.10.2021 um 12:03 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > >>> Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an >>> owning thread. > >> Really, is that their only use? .. > > Yes. Or more precisely: pracitcally yes. Because other uses aren't practicable because of the drawbacks of lock-free algorithms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-06 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sjli4q$km2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81787 |
On 10/2/2021 4:07 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.10.2021 um 13:06 schrieb Bonita Montero: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 12:03 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> >>>> Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an >>>> owning thread. >> >>> Really, is that their only use? .. >> >> Yes. > > Or more precisely: pracitcally yes. Because other uses aren't > practicable because of the drawbacks of lock-free algorithms. > > think outside of the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-09 09:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sjrgsn$8sh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81892 |
Am 07.10.2021 um 03:22 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 10/2/2021 4:07 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.10.2021 um 13:06 schrieb Bonita Montero: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 12:03 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> >>>>> Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces to an >>>>> owning thread. >>> >>>> Really, is that their only use? .. >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Or more precisely: pracitcally yes. Because other uses aren't >> practicable because of the drawbacks of lock-free algorithms. >> >> > > think outside of the box. Any algorihm having a slow path isn't lock free because the slow path locks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-09 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sjsqji$1m8o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81938 |
On 10/9/2021 12:38 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 07.10.2021 um 03:22 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/2/2021 4:07 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 02.10.2021 um 13:06 schrieb Bonita Montero: >>>> Am 02.10.2021 um 12:03 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>>> >>>>>> Lock-free stacks are used for pooling or handling back resoruces >>>>>> to an >>>>>> owning thread. >>>> >>>>> Really, is that their only use? .. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Or more precisely: pracitcally yes. Because other uses aren't >>> practicable because of the drawbacks of lock-free algorithms. >>> >>> >> >> think outside of the box. > > Any algorihm having a slow path isn't > lock free because the slow path locks. One can even choose to follow the slow-path or not. It would be in the try_* variety of functions... ;^) So allowing a fast and a slow path gives the best of both worlds. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-09 21:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sjssae$f4s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81951 |
> So allowing a fast and a slow path gives the best of both worlds. Am I talking to a complete idiot here ? We're not discussing what's the best while synchronizing threads but what's lock-free and what's not. And having a slow path makes an algorithm not lock-free. Read the WP-article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm : "In computer science, an algorithm is called non-blocking if failure or suspension of any thread cannot cause failure _or suspension of another thread_".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-09 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sjst64$pqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #81952 |
On 10/9/2021 12:59 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> So allowing a fast and a slow path gives the best of both worlds. > > Am I talking to a complete idiot here ? > > We're not discussing what's the best while synchronizing threads > but what's lock-free and what's not. And having a slow path makes > an algorithm not lock-free. > > Read the WP-article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-blocking_algorithm : > "In computer science, an algorithm is called non-blocking > if failure or suspension of any thread cannot cause failure > _or suspension of another thread_". > You think lock-free is crap. You wrote such things. So, whatever Bonita.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-10 06:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sjtqv4$q70$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81953 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web