Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:17:36 -0000 From: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <4EF0DF50.12183.B766CEDD@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1112201150420.29118@sea.ntplx.net> References: <Your message of <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>, <201112201009.25534.jhb@freebsd.org>, <Pine.GSO.4.64.1112201150420.29118@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 Dec 2011 at 11:56, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > We could look at adding an _np extension. However, I expect that in practice > > nothing is going to use this API for a long while (if ever). On POSIX systems > > pthreads is going to be more portable and there is a lot of code already > > written to pthreads. > > And that is exactly the point that Butenhof makes in this comment > about the ISO C standard 3 years ago: > > https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=show_archive.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=11671 > > His comments are a good read, and are still being echoed > in this thread. > > I wonder how much the final standard changed from the working > standard to which his comments pertain... I can tell you there was a flurry of activity about six months ago fixing things like using struct timespec which I was very glad about. And certainly the deviances from POSIX in the final spec are minimal compared to what they were. Niall -- Technology & Consulting Services - ned Productions Limited. http://www.nedproductions.biz/. VAT reg: IE 9708311Q. Company no: 472909.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EF0DF50.12183.B766CEDD>