Re: [sigc] Re: [gtkmm] libsigcx and gtkmm 2.4

[Martin Schulze <martin-ml hippogriff de>]

Am 13.06.2004 16:33:45 schrieb(en) Daniel Elstner:
> Am So, den 13.06.2004 um 2:10 Uhr +0200 schrieb Martin Schulze:
> > >
> > > Hmm std::string is a perfect example of an argument type that
> > > requires
> > > special handling.
> >
> > Why? The slot object is completely initialized before the  
> dispatcher
>
> > knows of it. Note that sigc::bind does not take arguments as
> references
> > by default if this is where you are heading.
>
> std::string can be implemented with reference counting, and the
> libstdc++ shipped with GCC does exactly that.

Meaning that no deep copy of the string is made although it is passed  
"by value"?! Then I understand the problem here.
(However, if you pass a "const char*" into the std::string ctor as in  
my example the copy is being created at once, isn't it?)

> > >  Even if it does this you still need mutex locking to protect
> > > the memory being shared (ensuring that event A happens after  
> event
> B
> > > is
> > > not enough due to the way modern hardware works; you definitely
> need
> > > memory barriers too).
> >
> > Why would you need memory barries? Thread A creates some objects,
> > thread B (the dispatcher) uses them and destroys them afterwards.
> > Of course, if you pass references around, you need to make sure  
> that
>
> > thread A doesn't manipulate the data while thread B is handling it,
>
> > yourself.
>
> Wrong!  It's not that simple.  Whenever two threads access the same
> data, both have to acquire the same mutex for any access to it
> whatsoever, be it reading or writing.  The only situation where this
> rule doesn't apply is if thread A creates the data before launching
> thread B, and both threads never write to it again, or only thread B
> does and thread A never accesses it at all.
>
> I highly recommend reading Butenhof's Programming with POSIX Threads.
> In particular, memorize Chapter 3.4 Memory visibility between  
> threads.
>
> Here's a table from that chapter:
>
> Time	Thread 1			Thread 2
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> t	write "1" to address 1 (cache)
> t+1	write "2" to address 2 (cache)	read "0" from address
> 1
> t+2	cache system flushes address 2
> t+3					read "2" from address 2
> t+4	cache system flushes address 1
>
> The point here is that there are no guarantees about memory ordering
> whatsoever.  As it happens reading address 2 works by chance, but the
> read from address 1 returns the wrong value despite the fact that the
> read happens after the write was completed.
>
> Usage of special instructions is required to guarantee ordering,
> called
> "memory barriers".  Locking/unlocking a mutex issues these
> instructions.

I still don't see the problem in the case where no references/pointers  
are being passed around: The list of slots the dispatcher operates on  
_is_ protected by memory barriers (there might be bugs in my code but  
it is perfectly possible to simply use a mutex around 'std::list:: 
push_back()' / 'std::list::pop_front()' as I pointed out in a comment  
and as Christer does).

Regards,

 Martin