From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 19 22:31:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156911065675; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:31:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C848FC15; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id pBJMVvED021175; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:57 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:31:57 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Niall Douglas In-Reply-To: <4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> Message-ID: References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> <4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:31:59 -0000 On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Niall Douglas wrote: > On 16 Dec 2011 at 22:49, Ed Schouten wrote: > >> In my opinion the ISO folks suffer a bit from the Not Invented Here >> syndrome. In an earlier revision of the C1X specification, they even >> described a `struct xtime', which had a purpose identical to `struct >> timespec'. The same holds for the threading API. It can be 1:1 mapped to >> a subset of pthread -- why not simply standardize that subset then? > > As someone who sits on said committees, I can tell you that the > reason why was because at the beginning it was thought that the C1X > threading API would diverge significantly from the POSIX API. Indeed, > early drafts of the standard had quite a number of changes. However, > just recently almost all of those changes have been excised due to > pressures from the system vendors and the C++ committee who came in > quite late on wanting feature parity between the two, and C++ had > chosen a specific subset of POSIX rather than doing anything to try > and fix its known problems. > > Obviously, had we known that from the beginning, things would have > been done differently. However, there was - in hindsight - a lack of > realisation just how expensive any significant changes would appear > to vendors. And why on earth would the thought of having a threading API significantly different from the POSIX API even be on the table? It boggles the mind. -- DE