On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, RoddGraham wrote:
Hi Rodd,
Nice to see your messages again.
> As a MT Xbase++ user, I have knowledge of its features and shortcommings.
> 1) Xbase++ is MT, but only reliable on single cpu core within the process.
> By default, the Xbase++ runtime sets single core affinity w
The key is in:
lInUse := ! lInUse
line. This code can be MT safe _only_ if xBase++ executes this
whole line as one atomic operation.
So far I haven't found any information about such functionality.
I see no sign this expression would be atomic.
I'd think if it would be, there would exist some
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
> Publics are really global and the assign is done in atomic
> operation what is the additional necessary protection I was writing
> about in previous message. But to make it fully safe also access has
> to be done as atomic operation or they have to e
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
> BTW folks, I'm seeing replies on nabble.com (by Angel Pais
> for example) to this thread, but these messages don't make
> it to this list (which is BTW perfectly okay to avoid spam).
Hi Viktor and Angel,
I've just read this message and I've got answer f
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Pritpal Bedi wrote:
Hi Pritpal,
> Pritpal,
> why should I as a Xbase++ developer help a competitor to advance its
> product???
> And why do you ask for our help in the Xbase++ generic newsgroup? In my
> eyes this is trolling. This has nothing to do with Xbase++.
> Maybe you
