[Insight-developers] itkTimeStamp Test Failures Mistery
Bradley Lowekamp
blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
Fri Feb 20 10:58:41 EST 2009
>
Hello,
This has been a very interesting discussion. I think these
definitions of reentrant and thread-safe here are important:
> According to QT, the optimized timestamp is thus reentrant but not
> thread-safe:
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/threads.html#reentrancy-and-thread-safety
> "By extension, a class is said to be reentrant if each and every one
> of its functions can be called simultaneously by multiple threads on
> different instances of the class. Similarly, the class is said to be
> thread-safe if the functions can be called by different threads on the
> same instance."
>
It appears the goal here is to make itkTimeStamp thread-safe. Does any
of ITK meet this definition? I know there are some parts which should
be reentrant (itkObjectFactory) but are not.
Why are we trying to get it to be thread-safe? Is this need? Where is
this need? Does every instance of TimeStamp need to meet this
requirement?
If only some do, do we need two types of TimeStamp class say:
itkTimeStamp - guaranteed to be only reentrant.
itkThreadSafeTimeStamp - guaranteed to be thread-safe as per the above
definition
I just wanted to check to see why this test was written the way it was
and if it was intentionally done so.
Brad
========================================================
Bradley Lowekamp
Lockheed Martin Contractor for
Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
National Library of Medicine
blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090220/a6672622/attachment.htm>
More information about the Insight-developers
mailing list