| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Date: | 2003-09-26 14:43:22 |
| Message-ID: | 15538.1064587402@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Surely the addresses can be assumed constant within a thread.
>> Otherwise we have a problem here too.
> Quoting from the MSDN:
> The address of a thread local object is not considered constant, and any
> expression involving such an address is not considered a constant
> expression.
Ah. That's probably reasonable. Still a bit of a PITA for us, as there
are various places that do give a static variable an initializer
pointing to another static. But that could be worked around I think.
I thought you were saying that the compiler would forbid taking a TLS
variable's address even at runtime.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 14:49:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-26 14:32:50 | Re: invalid tid errors in latest 7.3.4 stable. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-26 14:49:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-26 12:34:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes |