Re: [sigc] Re: [gtkmm] libsigcx and gtkmm 2.4
- From: Daniel Elstner <daniel elstner gmx net>
- To: Christer Palm <palm nogui se>
- Cc: libsigcx-main lists sourceforge net, libsigc-list gnome org, Gtkmm List <gtkmm-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [sigc] Re: [gtkmm] libsigcx and gtkmm 2.4
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:28:55 +0200
Am So, den 13.06.2004 um 21:23 Uhr +0200 schrieb Christer Palm:
> I would say that this is quite dependent on the locking scheme, lock
> contention potential, lock wait time, the complexity of the object
> beeing serialized and whether you are talking of efficiency in terms of
> lead time, consumption of CPU cycles or code size. But I happily stand
> corrected if you could back that claim up.
Granted, it depends on the situation. My opinion is mostly based on
experience by others who work on realtime critical applications, such as
Paul Davis' audio stuff.
> I do agree that passing or sharing objects safely between threads, or
> indeed, just making a copy of an object has similar limitations in C++.
> However, we're not trying to solve that problem. The user _would_ still
> have to take necessary precautions.
> If your stance is that you'd rather avoid doing something altogether if
> there's no way of making it foolproof, then so be it.
Nothing is foolproof. My point is that it's just too easy to use
e.g. std::string objects without thinking about the consequences.
] [Thread Prev