Re: [protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2017-07-07 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers 
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Brad Larson  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-5, Igor Gatis wrote:
>>
>> I'm using -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY but I'm hitting the
>> following errors:
>>
>> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 43: Error:  #20:
>> identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
>> AtomicWord GetNext() {
>> ^
>> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 47: Error:  #20:
>> identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
>> AtomicWord word_;
>> ^
>> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 44: Error:  #20:
>> identifier "NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement" is undefined
>>   return NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement(_, 1) - 1;
>>
>>
>> Any chance there is a GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY check missing?
>>
>
> I see these errors as well.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 at 2:16:20 PM UTC-3, Safi Ali wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot Feng for your quick answer. Well at the moment, we are only
>>> planning to use it in a single threaded application where we write/read
>>> messages sequentially, instead of in parallel. So I guess we are safe for
>>> now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Safi
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:32:19 PM UTC+3, Feng Xiao wrote:




 On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Safi Ali  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris
> (sparc) environment. It seems I have to use the 
> GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY
> macro in order to make it compile properly. So I follow these steps to
> compile protobuf:-
>
> ./configure CPPFLAGS="-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY"
> make
> make check
>
> In 'make check', all tests pass.
> Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the
> no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs
> with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be
> great if someone could clarify those for me:-
>
> 1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto
> files to java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread 
> safety
> during execution of compiled code?
>
 Protobuf uses mutex/locks at runtime to protect certain data structures
 in multi-threading environment.


> 2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to
> single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in
> somewhat "unsafe" fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im
> unlucky?
>
 Protobuf doesn't create threads, but with no_thread_safety macro, all
 mutex/locks will be turned into nop. That means you can only use protobuf
 in a single threaded binary. If you try to use messages in multiple
 threads, the code may break unexpectedly.

>>>
> Can anyone confirm, is it acceptable to read/write different messages in
> different threads?  Or can we only have one thread make any protobuf calls
> at all?
>
If you are using GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY, you cannot use protobuf
in multiple threads. Even using different message types in different
threads will be problematic because all message types share the same global
DescriptorPool/MessageFactory/etc.

If you are not using GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY, protobuf supports
the same thread-safety semantics as with standard types. Reading/writing
different messages in different threads are fine. Reading the same message
in multiple threads is also fine. To write a message in multiple threads a
lock must be used.


>
>
>>

> 3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if
> anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.
>
> Regards,
> Safi
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

 --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to

Re: [protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2017-07-07 Thread Brad Larson 


On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-5, Igor Gatis wrote:
>
> I'm using -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY but I'm hitting the following 
> errors:
>
> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 43: Error:  #20: 
> identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
> AtomicWord GetNext() {
> ^
> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 47: Error:  #20: 
> identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
> AtomicWord word_;
> ^
> "src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 44: Error:  #20: 
> identifier "NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement" is undefined
>   return NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement(_, 1) - 1;
>
>
> Any chance there is a GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY check missing?
>

I see these errors as well.

 

>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 at 2:16:20 PM UTC-3, Safi Ali wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks a lot Feng for your quick answer. Well at the moment, we are only 
>> planning to use it in a single threaded application where we write/read 
>> messages sequentially, instead of in parallel. So I guess we are safe for 
>> now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Safi
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:32:19 PM UTC+3, Feng Xiao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Safi Ali  wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris 
 (sparc) environment. It seems I have to use 
 the GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro in order to make it compile 
 properly. So I follow these steps to compile protobuf:-

 ./configure CPPFLAGS="-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY"
 make 
 make check

 In 'make check', all tests pass. 
 Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the 
 no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs 
 with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be 
 great if someone could clarify those for me:-

 1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto 
 files to java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread 
 safety 
 during execution of compiled code?

>>> Protobuf uses mutex/locks at runtime to protect certain data structures 
>>> in multi-threading environment.
>>>  
>>>
 2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to 
 single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in 
 somewhat "unsafe" fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im 
 unlucky?

>>> Protobuf doesn't create threads, but with no_thread_safety macro, all 
>>> mutex/locks will be turned into nop. That means you can only use protobuf 
>>> in a single threaded binary. If you try to use messages in multiple 
>>> threads, the code may break unexpectedly.
>>>
>>
Can anyone confirm, is it acceptable to read/write different messages in 
different threads?  Or can we only have one thread make any protobuf calls 
at all?
 

>  
>>>
 3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if 
 anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.

 Regards,
 Safi

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2016-07-19 Thread Igor Gatis 
I'm using -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY but I'm hitting the following 
errors:

"src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 43: Error:  #20: 
identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
AtomicWord GetNext() {
^
"src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 47: Error:  #20: 
identifier "AtomicWord" is undefined
AtomicWord word_;
^
"src/google/protobuf/stubs/atomic_sequence_num.h", line 44: Error:  #20: 
identifier "NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement" is undefined
  return NoBarrier_AtomicIncrement(_, 1) - 1;


Any chance there is a GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY check missing?


On Monday, October 21, 2013 at 2:16:20 PM UTC-3, Safi Ali wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot Feng for your quick answer. Well at the moment, we are only 
> planning to use it in a single threaded application where we write/read 
> messages sequentially, instead of in parallel. So I guess we are safe for 
> now.
>
> Regards,
> Safi
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:32:19 PM UTC+3, Feng Xiao wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Safi Ali  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris 
>>> (sparc) environment. It seems I have to use 
>>> the GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro in order to make it compile 
>>> properly. So I follow these steps to compile protobuf:-
>>>
>>> ./configure CPPFLAGS="-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY"
>>> make 
>>> make check
>>>
>>> In 'make check', all tests pass. 
>>> Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the 
>>> no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs 
>>> with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be 
>>> great if someone could clarify those for me:-
>>>
>>> 1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto files 
>>> to java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread safety 
>>> during execution of compiled code?
>>>
>> Protobuf uses mutex/locks at runtime to protect certain data structures 
>> in multi-threading environment.
>>  
>>
>>> 2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to 
>>> single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in 
>>> somewhat "unsafe" fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im 
>>> unlucky?
>>>
>> Protobuf doesn't create threads, but with no_thread_safety macro, all 
>> mutex/locks will be turned into nop. That means you can only use protobuf 
>> in a single threaded binary. If you try to use messages in multiple 
>> threads, the code may break unexpectedly.
>>  
>>
>>> 3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if 
>>> anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Safi
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2013-10-21 Thread Safi Ali 
Hi,

I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris 
(sparc) environment. It seems I have to use 
the GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro in order to make it compile 
properly. So I follow these steps to compile protobuf:-

./configure CPPFLAGS=-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY
make 
make check

In 'make check', all tests pass. 
Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the 
no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs 
with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be 
great if someone could clarify those for me:-

1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto files to 
java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread safety during 
execution of compiled code?
2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to 
single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in 
somewhat unsafe fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im 
unlucky?
3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if 
anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.

Regards,
Safi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Protocol Buffers group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2013-10-21 Thread Feng Xiao 
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Safi Ali safi@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris
 (sparc) environment. It seems I have to use
 the GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro in order to make it compile
 properly. So I follow these steps to compile protobuf:-

 ./configure CPPFLAGS=-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY
 make
 make check

 In 'make check', all tests pass.
 Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the
 no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs
 with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be
 great if someone could clarify those for me:-

 1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto files
 to java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread safety
 during execution of compiled code?

Protobuf uses mutex/locks at runtime to protect certain data structures in
multi-threading environment.


 2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to
 single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in
 somewhat unsafe fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im
 unlucky?

Protobuf doesn't create threads, but with no_thread_safety macro, all
mutex/locks will be turned into nop. That means you can only use protobuf
in a single threaded binary. If you try to use messages in multiple
threads, the code may break unexpectedly.


 3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if
 anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.

 Regards,
 Safi

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Protocol Buffers group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Protocol Buffers group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [protobuf] Compiling protobuf with GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro

2013-10-21 Thread Safi Ali 
Hi,

Thanks a lot Feng for your quick answer. Well at the moment, we are only 
planning to use it in a single threaded application where we write/read 
messages sequentially, instead of in parallel. So I guess we are safe for 
now.

Regards,
Safi

On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:32:19 PM UTC+3, Feng Xiao wrote:




 On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Safi Ali safi...@gmail.com javascript:
  wrote:

 Hi,

 I have been trying to compile google protocol buffers 2.5.0 on solaris 
 (sparc) environment. It seems I have to use 
 the GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY macro in order to make it compile 
 properly. So I follow these steps to compile protobuf:-

 ./configure CPPFLAGS=-DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_THREAD_SAFETY
 make 
 make check

 In 'make check', all tests pass. 
 Can anyone shed some light on what are the caveats of using the 
 no_thread_safety macro? What, if any, problems can I expect from protobufs 
 with no thread safety. I have some apprehensions about it and it would be 
 great if someone could clarify those for me:-

 1. Is the thread safety only an issue during compilation of .proto files 
 to java/c++ source files? or does protobuf also rely on thread safety 
 during execution of compiled code?

 Protobuf uses mutex/locks at runtime to protect certain data structures in 
 multi-threading environment.
  

 2. If I dont use thread safety, does protobuf gracefully fall back to 
 single threaded model where needed, or still try to use threads but in 
 somewhat unsafe fashion which can lead to bugs such as deadlocks if im 
 unlucky?

 Protobuf doesn't create threads, but with no_thread_safety macro, all 
 mutex/locks will be turned into nop. That means you can only use protobuf 
 in a single threaded binary. If you try to use messages in multiple 
 threads, the code may break unexpectedly.
  

 3. How is the performance affected while using thread unsafe code? if 
 anyone has done some benchmarking, would be good to see the results.

 Regards,
 Safi

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Protocol Buffers group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Protocol Buffers group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.