Thank-you! A few years later, but I made the exact same assumptions. In particular, I assumed that if I had my own synchronization then lockers were not necessary.
On Sunday, 18 August 2013 15:29:34 UTC-7, Clemens Cap wrote: > > THANX and solved :-) > > My misunderstanding was: I thought that the term "Isolate" already > indicated sufficient separation between threads. Therefore I (mis)assumed > that if I prevent two pthreads from operating in the same Isolate by my own > ptrhead locking mechanism this already is sufficient. Moreover I > (mis)assumed from the term "Lockers" that they merely do the same, ie. > serializing access to Isolates. > > It looks like they are doing something different. The code now is working > nicely. > > Should somebody find this thread and have a similar problem: Use the new > version of Lockers, i.e. > > Locker locker(isolate); > > instead of the old one > > Locker locker; > > which is deprecated (and I didn't get it to work as well). > > Thanx again and cheers. > > > -- -- v8-users mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
