mutex | 用PHP写的分布式锁，可以用来实现进程间同步

I haven't come across such a ConcurrentCounter library, but crates.io is huge, maybe you find something. However, if you are mostly concerned with primitives such as i32, there is a better alternative call: Atomics, definitely worth checking out.

Nevertheless, your approach of generalizing the ConcurrentCounter is going in a good direction. In the context of operation overloading, std::ops is worth a look. Specifically, you need Add, Sub, and Mul, respectively. Also, you need a Copy bound (alternatively, a Clone would also do). So you were pretty close:

I'm trying to parallelize a merge-sort algorithm. What I'm doing is dividing the input array for each thread, then merging the threads results.

Ok, but yours is an unnecessarily difficult approach. At each step of the merge process, you want half of your threads to wait for the other half to finish, and the most natural way for one thread to wait for another to finish is to use pthread_join(). If you wanted all of your threads to continue with more work after synchronizing then that would be different, but in this case, those that are not responsible for any more merges have nothing at all left to do.

This is what I've tried:

I think this is a conflict with third-party headers which we've seen before here:

"xtime: ambiguous symbol" error, when including

In that case reordering the includes worked out. If that doesn't work in your situation, you should work out which library is to blame (usually its the one that contaminates global namespace with (macro) definitions).

And then you can report the defect to the respective maintainers.

Any Ideas why the IOCP is not passing the Completion Key?

of course it passing back exactly what you pass to CreateIoCompletionPort and I/O in place pointer to OVERLAPPED

but at first

Similar to pthread mutex robust do we have anything for std::mutex?

No we don't. Not on the systems, I know about, anyway.

On POSIX systems, the 'robustness' of a mutex has to be set when the mutex is created. Since the mutex is created by the std::mutex constructor, and this has no 'robustness' parameter, this is not possible.

On Windows, there is no 'robustness' setting for mutexes / critical section objects, period.

The thing the compiler is looking for is a lifetime bound. A lifetime bound of 'a doesn't mean “this type is a reference with lifetime 'a”, but rather “all of the references this type contains have lifetimes of at least 'a”.

(When a lifetime bound is written explicitly, it looks like where T: 'a.)

Thus, any type which does not contain any references (or rather, has no lifetime parameters) automatically satisfies the 'static lifetime bound. If T: 'static, then Arc: 'static (and the same for Box and Rc).

How could Arc::clone(&msg) get a 'static lifetime? The value it points to isn't known at compile-time, and could die before the whole program exits.

It does not point to the value using a reference, so it's fine. The type of your value is Arc>; there are no lifetime parameters here because there are no references. If it were, hypothetically, Arc<'a, Mutex> (a lifetime parameter which Arc doesn't actually have), then that type would not satisfy the bound.

The job of Arc (or Rc or Box) is to own the value it points to. Ownership is not a reference and thus not subject to lifetimes.

However, if you had the type Arc<&'a str>> then that would not satisfy the bound, because it contains a reference which is not 'static.

Try:

Ok so after all the things I finally got it to working

No need to change the folder to laravel inside root project

No need to change the DocumentRoot

Just Had to change in blade.php from

So is there any way to acquire those locks only if all of them are available?

No. Not with standard library mutex at least. There is no way to "check" if a lock is available, or "try" acquiring a lock. Every call of Lock() will block until locking is successful.

The implementation of mutex relies on atomic operations which only act on a single value at once. In order to achieve what you describe, you'd need some kind of "meta locking" where execution of the lock and unlock methods are themselves protected by a lock, but this probably isn't necessary just to have correct and safe locking in your program:

Penelope Stevens' comment explains correctly: As long as the order of acquisition is consistent between different goroutines, you won't get deadlocks, even for arbitrary subsets of the locks, if each goroutine eventually releases the locks it acquires.

If the structure of your program provides some obvious locking order, then use that. If not, you can create your own special mutex type that has intrinsic ordering.