[c++-pthreads] C++ and posix threads

[Nathan Myers]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:56:42AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip.org> writes:
> 
> | On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0100, Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote:
> | > I feel confused.  I wonder what is the context of the discussion
> | > and especially the constraints or the liberties we assume from
> | > an implementation.  
> | 
> | This list was started in hope getting guidance for the implementers of 
> | gcc/glibc in creating a synchronous thread-cancellation binding that is
> | sensible for C++.
> 
> I hope this list was not setup in order to come up with GCC- or
> GLIBC-centric solutions.  I think that was precisely the opposite, if
> I understand Matt's original suggestion correctly.

Of course.  This list is meant to bring in people from outside the gcc 
list, but it's not POSIX.  If we invent a design, and implement and 
demonstrate it, it's a valuable example for all C++ implementers.  But 
if we tie ourselves in knots trying to accommodate every historical 
mistake and every overconstrained implementation, we we will make no 
progress and no contribution, and will waste everybody's time besides.  

It is essential that we stick to the basics: what is essential, and 
what can we really implement?  It has already been observed that the 
standards as conceived are incompatible.   We are have no choice but 
to do something different, and work to standardize that.  (Actually, 
we do have a choice: we can fail.  Ada has no POSIX cancellation 
binding.)

Do you have anything to say about the model that was proposed, or can 
you propose an alternative?

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip.org