Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Markus Elfring Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.programming.threads Subject: Re: Trivial C11 threads.h wrapper (public domain) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:05:45 +0200 Lines: 30 Message-ID: <50696AF9.2000202@web.de> References: <5065EAFD.1050102@loria.fr> <5068B604.9020606@web.de> <5068C9C3.6090502@loria.fr> <50696193.3090503@web.de> <506966CA.6080308@loria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 1GN4e8BGuHvGHV16dyZvKwA6wTOmXwDvyPTwwGYEEtFD3ABBF+Sxts82LxAsVhHKXv Cancel-Lock: sha1:wss8pLj3Ph5nxJFUSFNeyNwohnA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120825 Thunderbird/15.0 In-Reply-To: <506966CA.6080308@loria.fr> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:26925 comp.programming.threads:1136 > The problem here is that this is not an interface that I/we design, > but that this is supposed to emulate a C library interface. The > description there is extremely concise, and in particular it doesn't > foresee the possibility of failure of the call. (For other functions > the standard would have some generic phrase "if you pass invalid input > to the function the behavior is undefined".) I would appreciate if members of the involved standardisation committees will share their advices for proper and unambiguous interpretation of the discussed specification and corresponding implementation details. >> Is the completion of error detection and corresponding exception handling an >> open issue also in the affected wrapper implementation? > > No, I don't think that this is a general problem, since most of the > C11 function foresee a mechanism to return error conditions. There are > only a few functions like this one that don't have any at all. > > What is generally happening, though, is that the error conditions that > C11 foresees are only a subset of what POSIX provides. So sometimes > there might be a loss of information. I guess that this feature difference in the programming interfaces will lead to a lot of more discussions between software developers, reviewers and testers. I am curious on further clarifications. Regards, Markus