- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
What TBB version are you using?I just searched TBB v4.0 sources installed on my computer with
'concurrent_lru_cache' expression and I haven't found anything.
Best regards,
Sergey
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/uploads/81/91/Latest%20Open%20Source%20Documentation/Reference.pdf
http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/hpc/tbb/referencev2.pdf
http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/hpc/tbb/referencev3.pdf
Thanks!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I've got some questions for you after reviewing the documentation.
- Has there been any changes to concurrent_lru_cache in the new TBB 4 Update 3? Can I simply try it out in TBB 4 Update 2?
- Will operator[]() block when adding a new cache item while all pre-existing items are already in use?
- How do you recommend using it efficiently for large value_type's given that value_functor_type returns the cache item by value? I'm not using C++11 yet so move operators are out of the question.
Thanks!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
see bellow:
- Has there been any changes to concurrent_lru_cache in the
new TBB 4 Update 3? Can I simply try it out in TBB 4 Update 2?
-- Yes, there were some minor changes to fix warnings on some compilers.
However from end-user perspective there should no big difference in sense of
container functionality.
- Will operator[]() block when adding a new cache item while all pre-existing
items are already in use
-- the short answer is : no, it will not.
the long one is next: concurrent_lru_cache does not limit number of objects
that are in use, instead it throws away extra _unused_ objects. (technically
speaking some blocking is inevitable as internally locks are used to keep
internal data structutres corects.)
- How do you recommend using it efficiently for large value_type's given that
value_functor_type returns the cache item by value? I'm not using C++11 yet so
move operators are out of the question.
-- the state of art is to use some kind of smart proxy objects like C++11
shared_ptr
Hope it helps :)
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page