Groups > comp.programming.threads > #422

Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows

Newsgroups	comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer
From	Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid>
Subject	Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows
References	(10 earlier) <iv42dd$ed2$2@dont-email.me> <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> <c1ahe8-hi.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <aedpe8-ca1.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <dnFSp.16196$467.7869@news.usenetserver.com>
Date	2011-07-12 13:30 +0100
Message-ID	<1drte8-a96.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk> (permalink)
Organization	Zen Internet

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes:
>>William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows:
>>> 
>>>         http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html
>>
>>Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions?  Certainly
>>there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but
>>that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing.
>
> A quick examination of the list of functions concludes that they
> fit into one of the following categories:
>
>   - Not applicable to windows (pthread_atfork, getpwnam_r, et. al.)
>   - An optional POSIX feature (robust mutexes)
>   - stdio & C Library extensions
>   - signals

Robust mutexes are not optional in POSIX.

They were a new addition in the current (2008) standard; it looks
like the pthreads-win32 implementation still targets the old 2001
standard.  (The web page says _POSIX_THREADS etc. are defined as
200112L.)  However, since robust mutexes are mentioned in the
conformance status perhaps an update to POSIX 2008 is planned.

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

Thread

POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200
  Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700
    Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200
      Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500
        Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
          Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500
            Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500
          Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700
      Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700
    Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400
      Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700
        Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400
          Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200
      Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000
        Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-07-12 13:30 +0100
  Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700
  Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200

csiph-web