Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #3755 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rami17 <rami17@rami17.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-06 21:15 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-06 21:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads
I was thinking about Transactional memory more.. rami17 <rami17@rami17.net> - 2017-05-06 21:15 -0400
| From | rami17 <rami17@rami17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 21:15 -0400 |
| Subject | I was thinking about Transactional memory more.. |
| Message-ID | <oels9m$b1t$3@dont-email.me> |
Hello...... I was thinking about Transactional memory more.. Here is the problem of optimistic transactional memory: If there is more conflicts between reads and writes you have to rollback etc. and this will be less energy efficient than pessimistic locking mechanisms and it will be less faster. So i think that my C++ Synchronization objects library is still useful.. You can download it from: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/c-synchronization-objects-library Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads
csiph-web