On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM, André Somers <[email protected]>wrote:
> Op 23-7-2013 13:34, Giuseppe D'Angelo schreef: > > On 23 July 2013 13:25, Bill Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all: > >> > >> The QMap class states that all member functons are reentrant, but > >> if I populate a map at program start-up (with QStrings, let's say) and I > >> do not change its contents from then on... I should be able to treat the > >> member function ::contains() and any other member function which does > not > >> modify the map as thread-safe. > >> > >> Is true? > > Probably yes, although totally undocumented. (There has been some > > discussion before the release of 5.0 -- about whether we should make > > it official that using only "const" methods on containers makes them > > thread safe, but I don't remember the outcome...) > > > > HTH, > Well, if I understood Herb Sutters talk[1] on this correctly, that > basically *is* the meaning of const nowadays... > > André > > [1] > > http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/C-and-Beyond-2012-Herb-Sutter-You-dont-know-blank-and-blank > Thanks for sharing this link. It was very informative. (BTW, this applies only to C++11) Also, doesn't a "const" (old sense of the word) member function mean - "I'm not going to alter the state of the object" ? If so, that would make it thread-safe in the special scenario (mentioned by OP) where only "reads" are being attempted, right? Can an implementation make it thread-unsafe while still being const (again considering only the special "read-only" scenario)? -mandeep > -- > You like Qt? > I am looking for collegues to join me at i-Optics! > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
