Vinzent Höfler wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys grae...@opensoft.homeip.net:
I have a corrected TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer
implementation (don't worry, not based on Delphi implementation)
that I can donate to FPC.
I hope it isn't based on the Delphi one. Last time I heard the Delphi
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
I just need confirmation that the current implementation in FPC is
incorrect though.
It's not incorrect, just inefficient.
I have to disagree. The currently class name is
TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer. The currently
Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org:
If you have a better for unix this will be fine. IIRC it is not easy (if
possible after all?) to implement TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer
for unix systems.
It's possible, yes. If it's possible in an efficient way, is another question.
Vinzent.
In our previous episode, Florian Klaempfl said:
(don't worry, not based on Delphi implementation) that I can donate to
FPC. I just need confirmation that the current implementation in FPC is
incorrect though.
If you have a better for unix this will be fine. IIRC it is not easy (if
Graeme Geldenhuys grae...@opensoft.homeip.net:
I have a corrected TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer implementation
(don't worry, not based on Delphi implementation) that I can donate to
FPC.
I hope it isn't based on the Delphi one. Last time I heard the Delphi
implementation suffers from
Hi,
The current TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer as implemented in FPC
2.3.1 is wrong. It use Critical Sections in a standard way which means
it blocks all other threads while one thread is doing a Read. This is
wrong. It is a MULTI read, SINGLE write synchronizer. So it must only
block
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
Hi,
The current TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer as implemented in FPC
2.3.1 is wrong. It use Critical Sections in a standard way which means
it blocks all other threads while one thread is doing a Read. This is
wrong. It is a MULTI read, SINGLE write
On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:35, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
If you have a better for unix this will be fine. IIRC it is not easy
(if
possible after all?) to implement TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer
for unix systems.
What's wrong with these routines: pthread_rwlock_init,
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:35, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
If you have a better for unix this will be fine. IIRC it is not easy (if
possible after all?) to implement TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer
for unix systems.
What's wrong with these routines: pthread_rwlock_init,
