Re: Bad compile time complexity for large files ??? (fwd)
On Nov 10, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: FYI. Joris's messages seem to have been blocked... Please, CC: Joris when replying. Joris -- It might help if you can provide information about the version of GCC you're using. You might also want to try http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ That way, your report will be recorded in the PR database. I would be interested in seeing a test case. Compilation speed is important, and if there really is something that cases superlinear behavior I would like to fix it. --Matt
Re: Subtle MT problem with __gnu_cxx::hash_map
On Nov 19, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Paul Dubuc wrote: There's a subtle thread safety problem with hash_map that was found in our testing recently. It's understood that operator[] is a non-const method since it can insert an element into a container if one is not found with the given index. In our case we were using operator[] to access a hash_map that had been fully populated. Each index we were using did have an entry in the hash_map. So we were accessing elements in the map with operator[] using multiple threads thinking that this would be a thread safe, const operation. This is implied by the statement "simultaneous read accesses to to shared containers are safe" in the SGI STL user's guide (http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/thread_safety.html). But operator[] isn't read access. It's defined to be equivalent to a certain form of insert(). --Matt
