Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:36:21 -0000 From: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> To: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> In-Reply-To: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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?4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A>