Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes
| От | Tom Lane | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15538.1064587402@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.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
		
	В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: