On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Eugene Zolenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I meant "no way to do that in portable c++" :). I don't know > what syncronization primitives cryptopp is already using, but if there > are mutexes or something else already they should be used I think. > Initialization of singletons doesn't seem to be performance-critical > enough to go for full lockless solution on all platforms just for its > sake. :) > The readme mentions: "2. Crypto++ is thread safe at the class level. This means you can use Crypto++ safely in a multithreaded application, but you must provide synchronization when multiple threads access a common Crypto++ object." Maybe the intent is for the user to provide a lock around the calls to Singleton? I think definition of "singletons" in general doesn't necessarily include thread-safety... -- "Thou shalt not follow the null pointer for at its end madness and chaos lie." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
