-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
Sent: 18. december 2010 03:35
> In my experience, both Windows and POSIX provide thread specific data
> ("TSD") APIs which are much more efficient than using mutexes for
> doing things like accessing redundant caches without API
> modifications. The way this works is that your pointer is stored in a
> thread-specific area so that it is found efficiently with one array
> indexing operation. TSD could be used to support the single-pixel
> cache you mention.
Hi all.
The application I am working on just disables the cache. Locking is extremely
counterproductive, since we tile the image and put each thread to work in
parallel. I would think this is a very common way to operate, so I never
really understood the reason why locking was even an option.
In my opinion, TLD (thread local data) is over engineering and not
generally available. Why not just reserve a small buffer on the stack and
pass it to a thread-safe version of the conversion routine?
Something along these lines:
cmsTransformBuf buf;
cmsDoTransformTS(src, dst, pix_count, &buf);
The single-pixel would simply be put in the buffer.
Just my two cents, but it looks simple, portable, easy to use and solves
all problems I had with the current interface.
Kind regards,
Esben H-R Myosotis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotusphere 2011
Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how
to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment
to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d
_______________________________________________
Lcms-user mailing list
Lcms-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lcms-user
