Re: [Openexr-devel] Thread safety

[Brendan Bolles]

On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Christopher Horvath wrote:

> I think it should be a config-level decision. People who (god-forbid) need to 
> maintain different thread-capable installations could then have their 
> packaging system deal with "exr_omp", "exr_posix", "exr_cxx11", "exr_tbb".


Right, it seems like we should be able to support many different threading 
libraries by adding new IlmThread implementations and just choosing which to 
compile.  We currently have IlmThreadPosix.cpp and IlmThreadWin32.cpp, how 
about IlmThreadTBB.cpp and IlmThreadStd.cpp?  Either way we need a single 
abstraction to connect to any threading architecture, which we already have in 
IlmThread.h.

OMP would not appear to be compatible with making an IlmThread implementation, 
but I guess there's nothing stopping someone from sprinkling OMP pragmas 
throughout the code. Is there harm from using OMP on top of IlmThread?

I agree that C++11 std::threads should eventually become the default when 
available.


Brendan