-
Feature Articles
- Most Recent Articles
- The Easy No
- Flushed Out
- The Hot Fix
- The Roadmap
- Let's Be Facebook!
- Whales Ahoy!
- Three Digit Acronyms
- The Pride Goeth
- CodeSOD
-
Error'd
- Most Recent Articles
- Princess Pricing
- Einfach so
- Kaids Hen 2025
- Fi fa foe
- Microbits
- No Rush
- Bridge for Sale
- Super SEO Strategies
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
At Buenos Aires, Argentina, Federal Office Dept., they have the same system for passports request. Maybe the same software? :-/
Admin
That's brilliant! I can just put EnterCriticalSection as the first line and LeaveCriticalSection as the last line of main() and never have concurrency problems anywhere in my program again!
Admin
Actually it is in appendix E of the special addition, and Stroustrup cites the technique as a reason that C++ doesn't need the finally keyword: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#finally
Admin
Despite the questionable use of the Critical Section variable, there is a bigger problem.
(I'm speaking Windows-Speak here - *nix people will recognize the words, it will sound gobbledygook as the non-Windows world uses different definitions).
A critical section only protects you from a collision with another thread in the same process.
We don't know enough about the architecture of the system, but it is probably multi-process.
A Mutex will work for multiple processes on a single system, while something more complex is required if the display is a network resource.
Ideally, a server would receive messages from various clients and queue them for the display device. This does not appear to be happening, given the current failure mode.