In standard jargon of C and C++, the phrase "atomic object" means "object of atomic type," does it not?
Assume we want to count something in an OpenMP loop. Compare the reductionwith the atomic incrementThe atomic access provides the result immediately, while a reduction only assumes its correct value at the end of the loop. For instance, reductions do not allow this:
Suppose, I have a task that might be cancelled from another thread. The task is performed in a C function, another thread runs C++ code. How do I do that?
Somewhere I read that unary operators are atomic by nature and so they can be used as it is in multi threaded environment. To confirm the same, I wrote two separate programs where in
Have a structure declared and defined in shared file.Both threads create by the Windows API CreateThread() have visibility to the instance of it:
Atomic newbie here. My code currently looks like this (simplified):In words, my idea is to let thread_b atomically swap the shared object (double-buffering), while thread_a performs some work on it. My question: can I safely assume that the shared object will be "protected" against data races while thread_a calls doSomething()...
I have a question regarding the order of operations in the following code:Given the description of std::memory_order_acquire on the cppreference page (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order), that
I have read the doc of std::memory_order_relaxed.One part of explanation of Relaxed ordering is ....and the explanation of this is said ...
Question: I'm looking for the best way to clear the lowest non-zero bit of a unsigned atomic like std::atomic_uint64_t in a threadsafe fashion without using an extra mutex or the like. In addition, I also need to know, which bit got cleared.
Should we synchronize on writing strings? Since string is immutable we will never get inconsistent state between write and read from the 2 different threads, right?