[c++-pthreads] Re: Does the cancelation exception have a name?

[Peter Dimov]

Dave Butenhof wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Dave Butenhof wrote:
>>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>>>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>>>> Google pthread_exit_e.
>>>>> I know about DEC pthread_exit_e, my question was more about
>>>>> g++/glibc/NPTL's implementation and how the people involved feel.
>>>>> DEC's exception doesn't have a C++ name, by the way,
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/271124f3a0517204
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "C++ doesn't have a name for those "foreign" exceptions. (Of course
>>>> destructors work fine.) We've worked with the compiler group to add
>>>> some builtin exception subclasses to deal with that, but we never
>>>> found the time to finish hooking up all the bits."
>>> Alexander; perhaps the most telling part of the article you quote
>>> here is that I wrote it 6 years ago tomorrow; and we still don't
>>> have a standard for integration of threads and C++, and with Tru64
>>> UNIX reduced to irrelevance I don't think there's any current
>>> commercial UNIX that's even tried to do it right. I feel like
>>> everything that can be said has circulated more than just a few
>>> times before, with little effect. Kinda frustrating, really.
>> The difference this time around is that some of us are trying to
>> write a formal proposal for the planned
>>
>> "30 - Threading API
>> This section is a placeholder. The next C++ standard is intended to
>> include support for a threading API. This feature is intended to
>> provide support for synchronization facilities and thread launching
>> and joining. For more information and snapshots of current draft
>> proposals still under discussion and development, see: N1907, N2090."
>>
>> section of the next C++ standard.

> Sure; but it's not so clear that's "a difference" since many people
> had a similar intent back then. In fact the first post to THIS
> mailing list was nearly 3 years ago, and various other mailing lists
> related to the subject of C++ and threads, and especially to
> standardization thereof, have come and gone -- and generally stayed
> pretty quiet.

This time we have a deadline to meet. My current understanding is that the 
placeholder section above has already been voted into the working paper by 
an official ISO formal motion, and the intent of the committee is that in 
'C++0X', X should be decimal. :-) In practice this means that the threading 
API proposal is already late by one meeting.