Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Joseph M. Newcomer <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:20:55 -0400
My impression was that the draft had a lot of wiggle room that allowed the COW
interpretation to look acceptable, and one of the things that was tightened up a lot was
the language that forbade this. Note that the VC6 implementation was probably based on
something earlier than the C++ draft standard, such as the original spec of STL, because
of the timing.
Generally, lazy evaluation can win big, but only if it is done right. We had an Algol-68
implementation running on our big multiprocessor at CMU back in 1977, and it used lazy
evaluation everywhere. Key was that it had to be *absolutely* transparent on a
multiprocessor. Biggest problem we had was the then-current view that there was a 1:1
mapping between threads and processes. In retrospect this was a horrible mistake.
joe
On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:52:28 -0500, "Doug Harrison [MVP]" <dsh@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:12:38 +0100, Daniel JamesJoseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
<wastebasket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article news:<qu6u43lq9ek00svircjth2l2kfgkihtosr@xxxxxxx>, Doug Harrison
[MVP] wrote:
The C++ Standard requires that std::string::reference be an actual
reference instead of a class type, and this forbids COW.
..but VC6's std::string is much older than the standard.
The C++ Standard came out in 1998, and VC6 came out in 1998. Moreover,
Dinkumware certainly wrote the library according to the draft standard,
which was no different than the finalized standard in this respect. My
point was, VC6's std::string does not use real COW, nor does any
standard-compliant implementation; they can't, and I explained why in my
previous message.
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Doug Harrison [MVP]
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- References:
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Scott McPhillips [MVP]
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Michael K. O'Neill
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Ismo Salonen
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: MrAsm
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Daniel James
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Doug Harrison [MVP]
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Daniel James
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- From: Doug Harrison [MVP]
- Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- Prev by Date: Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- Next by Date: Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- Previous by thread: Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- Next by thread: Re: Minimum VC++ for Multi-Core?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|