Talk:Thread-local storage

message: The java example should probably show a static ThreadLocal.  Although non-static ThreadLocal objects can be created, it's not the common use case and can lead to issues.  See this excellent post on the issue: http://www.0xcafefeed.com/2004/06/of-non-static-threadlocals-and-memory/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.48.183 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the Java Example

message: Information on other operating systems would be interesting. Shinobu 01:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more OS & Language sections

message: This should be 'thread-local storage'.  At the very least, lower case l and s.  I don't know how to rename a page though. --Stevage 02:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. Fortunately I do know how to rename a page. Shinobu 10:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for doing it, care to share? :) --Stevage 13:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a tab to the right of the "history"-tab (to the left of the "(un)watch"-tab). Be sure to invoke it from the article-page, not from the talk-page, otherwise only the talk-page gets renamed. The nice thing about this way of renaming an article compared to a cut and paste move is that a) all the article history will be moved along and b) a redirect from the old name is created automatically. Shinobu 11:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Stevage 14:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: どう致しまして! Shinobu 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: Is it really necessary to detail the specific implementations for each platform?  I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that such information is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia.
Parklandspanaway 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you can find people here on both sides of that issue. My take is that the examples in this article are acceptable because they are fairly concise and there are not an excessive number of them. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My response is that we can refactor the article if that happens.  That same situation has occurred on many other articles before, with a common remedy being to separate the example implementations into their own article, or delete them.  I think they have value in that you can see in a fairly concise way (which is not what you get by refering to external documentation) how the various language implementations differ.  Anyway, I'm not trying to argue this point because I'm against any change, just giving you my opinion on the matter. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation sections 

message: The implementation sections seem not to be about implementation but about API's; the actual implementations are not described, just some API function names listed. -- Hkultala (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation vs API 

message: I think Thread-Specific Storage should be merged into Thread-local storage. Google shows 6,960 for "thread specific storage" and 76,700 for "thread local storage". b4hand (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That other article doesn't contain much new material; I think the only thing worth carrying over to here is the name, if we can find a good reference for it. Shinobu (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, done. —Jorend (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This sentence makes no sense at all:
> TLS with POSIX Threads, thread-specific data in Pthreads nomenclature, is similar to TlsAlloc and related functionality for Windows.
Posix thread local storage is similar to a Windoze function?  What does that mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.186 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: that mean, you have got a butthurt. That always happens when some PUSSYX/Crapux/Clinix zealot reads out that something in his PUSSYX/Crapux/Clinix is *LIKE* in Windows. Then the butthurt comes to him. Right. Remove all the PUSSYX/Crapux/Clinix things from there, because Tls is really the Windows thing, since only there threads are the real threads, and in the PUSSYX/Crapux/Clinix world even now one can not distinct properly between a process and a thread, and doesn't understand what a thread is at all.
77.52.154.175 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I just added a real description of pthread thread-specific storage. That sentence was no longer necessary so it's gone. Martinkunev (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Certain types of modern processors (e.g. many models of Intel x86 architecture) do come with hardware support for such a functionality. In general the most used processor design base comes with local stacks and with local registers that are definitely serving identical needs: a single thread has its very own private set of resources (where some of it can be published to others and some can not). actual multitasking methods & systems do take care of that by saving stack pointers and local register states when making a thread wait, and they will restore those values when making a certain thread again running. rationale: TLS is the long term memory variant for thread local data whilst stack and registers are the short to very short term storage for thread local data. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processor Support & General Aspects