>> If we want to avoid UB in the multithreaded world, I’m afraid we will have >> to make a C++11 compiler a requirement, as C++03 never acknowledged the >> existence of threads. (That is not limited to this place, a lot of methods >> like PdfEncodingFactory::GlobalPdfRomanEncodingInstance are not currently >> threadsafe in C++03, as discussed earlier.) > That is not thread-safe even in C++11.
True, but C++11 or later would give us the tools to make it thread-safe. > Except that some things are not so available as threads like for example > thread_local and atomic operations. thread_local equivalents are available for g++, clang, and MSVC. That covers the compilers listed in https://github.com/NickNaso/PoDoFo/blob/master/README.md#installation_with_cmake. See my proposed PODOFO_THREAD_LOCAL in https://sourceforge.net/p/podofo/mailman/message/37389082/. > I like this idea. As PODOFO_MULTI_THREAD will enable C++11 Is there a chance we might get there? Who would be able to make that decision? Cheers, Christopher The MathWorks GmbH | Friedlandstr.18 | 52064 Aachen | District Court Aachen | HRB 8082 | Managing Directors: Bertrand Dissler, Steven D. Barbo, Jeanne O’Keefe
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
