Re: Thread safety of new and delete

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Simeon Zlatarev <simeon.zlatarev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Thread safety of new and delete
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:40:56 +0000
Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
In-reply-to: <CAH6eHdQci-n0p5ZaubNHHBA32EB6arRZ1mbV1-y16aT=Pyy+og@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 January 2013 21:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> N.B. Currently calling std::set_new_handler concurrently with calls to
> new or other calls to set_new_handler *does* introduce a data race.
> This is a bug in libstdc++.

N.B. I'm going to fix this, but maybe not in time for 4.8.0

References:
- Thread safety of new and delete
  - From: Simeon Zlatarev
- Re: Thread safety of new and delete
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Prev by Date: RE: Thread safety of new and delete
Next by Date: Re: No useful backtrace after uncaught exception in std::thread
Previous by thread: RE: Thread safety of new and delete
Next by thread: Potential side-effects/stability of deliberately inconsistent use of const, in C
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux