Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7661641
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 31, 20262026-05-31T13:37:30+00:00 2026-05-31T13:37:30+00:00

it is known that operator [] is not concurrently safe for writing: concurrent_vector::operator[] Operator

  • 0

it is known that operator [] is not concurrently safe for writing:
concurrent_vector::operator[] Operator
But what if I guarantee that different threads will write to different vector positions.
Like this (very much simplified example):

concurrent_vector<double> vec;
vec.resize(100);

parallel_for(0, 100, [&] (double ind)
{
    vec[ind] = ind*ind;
}

Is it concurrently safe or not? And if ‘not’ then why?

Thanks

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-31T13:37:30+00:00Added an answer on May 31, 2026 at 1:37 pm

    Yes, it is concurrently safe as it’s like if you are accessing different variables.

    As ildjam pointed out in the comment that would be safe even with regular std::vector or, let me add, with simple arrays.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Ok, I know that operator. is not overloadable but I need something like that.
It is well known that cin is not typesafe (e.g. cin >> integer; and
I have two vector objects that contain different types of data that are ordered
I'm making a simple class that uses operator<< . It will store two parallel
I know that equals() will compare the value of objects, the '==' operator will
I known that deriving a class from a primitive is not possible, however, I
I know that we cant use assignment operator in if statements in java as
I know that we can't overload operator with other meaning, we can't create new
I know that you can use a dummy int parameter on operator++ and operator--
I known that with subversion you can attach arbitrary properties to each files. In

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.