Timeline for Transitioning from C++ multithreading to Java multithreading
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 24, 2016 at 21:15 | answer | added | rwong | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 24, 2016 at 20:21 | answer | added | Solomon Slow | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 9:30 | vote | accept | Nav | ||
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:30 | comment | added | Nav | Ah the example I had just copied from the popular mutex tutorial on the internet. While the use of smart-pointer-protected locks is better, it'd help to know that there are some applications (like one I worked on), which needs such fast processing, that smart pointers actually slow down the program by a third. We had to replace boost pointer containers with a simple array implementation and noticed a huge improvement in performance. For smart pointer mutexes also, one man's meat is another man's poison. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | David Hammen |
Aside: Your c++ example is not a good way to use c++11 mutexes. Think of calling m.unlock() as equivalent to calling delete. Just as every call to delete is a sign of a potential problem in modern c++ code, so is every call to m.unlock(). Use a std::lock_guard or a std::unique_lock.
|
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 7:23 | answer | added | Captain Segfault | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 5:55 | history | asked | Nav | CC BY-SA 3.0 |