Related
will get: Imagine it creates a HashSet and starts a large number of worker threads passing through the HashSet on their main thread. Like in the code below: void main() {
final Set<String> set = new HashSet<>();
final ExecutorService threadExecutor =
Ex
Andrew Hanlon What is the correct way to only grant access to the mutex/locked region to the "last entry" thread, while ensuring that intermediate threads do not acquire the lock? Example sequence: A acquires lock
B waits
C waits
B fails to acquire lock*
A rel
free wind Say I have a global object: class Global {
public static int remoteNumber = 0;
}
There is a thread that runs periodically to get the new number from the remote, and update it (write only): new Thread {
@override
public void run() {
w
Justin Mathew What I'm doing here is browsing a read-only list in multiple threads via for-each and index methods. The result looks thread safe, but I don't believe it. Can someone tell if the code below (reading from a read-only list) is thread safe? If yes,
easymoden00b I have a form whose text field is required for one (1) of my two (2) buttons. The first (1st) button in the text field applies the code to the products in the cart section of my store. The second (second) removes all codes from all products in the
will get: Imagine it creates a HashSet and starts a large number of worker threads passing through the HashSet on their main thread. Like in the code below: void main() {
final Set<String> set = new HashSet<>();
final ExecutorService threadExecutor =
Ex
it_ My question is about thread synchronization. See the code below: std::vector<int> v_int;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
v_int.emplace_back(i);
}
auto f_async = std::async(std::launch::async,
[](auto v_int) mutable {
for (auto& el : v_in
Christman I have a html page with two forms, one for registration and one for login, i have made all fields required, but i want to do this, only registration fields are required, when you register When only the login field is required for you to log in. Here
Hello and goodbye The following code creates a new cost Threadand waits for the thread to finish before the main thread becomes active again. I don't quite understand how it works. Why not mythread.wait();call now? Why not use it Thread.join()? public static v
Andrew Hanlon What is the correct way to only grant access to the mutex/locked area to the "last entry" thread while ensuring that intermediate threads do not acquire the lock? Example sequence: A acquires lock
B waits
C waits
B fails to acquire lock*
A releas
Vico I have two classes with synchronous functions. This means that if you thread-0do proc1()and thread-1want to do the same, you proc1()will wait thread-0to complete proc1(). Please correct me if I'm wrong. But what if you thread-0execute proc1()and thread-1w
Vico I have two classes with synchronous functions. This means that if you thread-0do proc1()and thread-1want to do the same, you proc1()will wait thread-0to complete proc1(). Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But what if you thread-0execute proc1()and thread-1
Rich Lonsdale I know if two threads are writing to the same location, I need to make sure they are writing in a safe way and not causing any problems, but if only one thread reads and completes all writes and the other thread just What to do with reading. In m
it_ My question is about thread synchronization. See the code below: std::vector<int> v_int;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
v_int.emplace_back(i);
}
auto f_async = std::async(std::launch::async,
[](auto v_int) mutable {
for (auto& el : v_in
screwdriver I have a list of commands that are processed simultaneously on multiple threads. The list is static, each thread generates its output and doesn't interfere with other threads, so everything works fine so far. Some commands require complex computati
Andreas Reiff I have a situation where I want to acquire (lock) a resource in a function call, but in a callback (different thread) I'm told the process ends. (The resource is external: basically, when I start, a certain bus gets busy and becomes free again in
free wind Say I have a global object: class Global {
public static int remoteNumber = 0;
}
There is a thread that runs periodically to get the new number from the remote, and update it (write only): new Thread {
@override
public void run() {
w
easymoden00b I have a form whose text field is required for one (1) of my two (2) buttons. The first (1st) button in the text field applies the code to the products in the cart section of my store. The second (second) removes all codes from all products in the
Andreas Reiff I have a situation where I want to acquire (lock) a resource in a function call, but in a callback (different thread) I am told that the process has ended. (The resource is external: basically, when I start, a certain bus gets busy and is free ag
will get: Imagine it creates a HashSet and starts a large number of worker threads passing through the HashSet on their main thread. Like in the code below: void main() {
final Set<String> set = new HashSet<>();
final ExecutorService threadExecutor =
Ex
will get: Imagine it creates a HashSet and starts a large number of worker threads passing through the HashSet on their main thread. Like in the code below: void main() {
final Set<String> set = new HashSet<>();
final ExecutorService threadExecutor =
Ex
it_ My question is about thread synchronization. See the code below: std::vector<int> v_int;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
v_int.emplace_back(i);
}
auto f_async = std::async(std::launch::async,
[](auto v_int) mutable {
for (auto& el : v_in
Andrew Hanlon What is the correct way to only grant access to the mutex/locked area to the "last entry" thread while ensuring that intermediate threads do not acquire the lock? Example sequence: A acquires lock
B waits
C waits
B fails to acquire lock*
A releas
Hello and goodbye The following code creates a new cost Threadand waits for the thread to finish before the main thread becomes active again. I don't quite understand how it works. Why not mythread.wait();call now? Why not use it Thread.join()? public static v
Vico I have two classes with synchronous functions. This means that if you thread-0do proc1()and thread-1want to do the same, you proc1()will wait thread-0to complete proc1(). Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But what if you thread-0execute proc1()and thread-1
it_ My question is about thread synchronization. See the code below: std::vector<int> v_int;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
v_int.emplace_back(i);
}
auto f_async = std::async(std::launch::async,
[](auto v_int) mutable {
for (auto& el : v_in
it_ My question is about thread synchronization. See the code below: std::vector<int> v_int;
for (size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
v_int.emplace_back(i);
}
auto f_async = std::async(std::launch::async,
[](auto v_int) mutable {
for (auto& el : v_in
screwdriver I have a list of commands that are processed simultaneously on multiple threads. The list is static, each thread generates its output and doesn't interfere with other threads, so everything works fine so far. Some commands require complex computati
Andreas Reiff I have a situation where I want to acquire (lock) a resource in a function call, but in a callback (different thread) I am told that the process has ended. (The resource is external: basically, when I start, a certain bus gets busy and is free ag