Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Markus Elfring Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.programming.threads Subject: Clarification for interface specification "C11 threads.h" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:02:01 +0200 Lines: 23 Message-ID: <506BFF09.1090804@web.de> References: <5065EAFD.1050102@loria.fr> <5068B604.9020606@web.de> <5068C9C3.6090502@loria.fr> <50696193.3090503@web.de> <506966CA.6080308@loria.fr> <50696AF9.2000202@web.de> <50697B4C.1090203@loria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net JsXgmThPJhszFA78oB+vzgMWlhECDzUJQimX7h1cTrNuXFb1+x Cancel-Lock: sha1:yngXBflrN9spPhzQyUt876PWwm0= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120825 Thunderbird/15.0 In-Reply-To: <50697B4C.1090203@loria.fr> Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:26954 comp.programming.threads:1162 > The main difference is really the starting point of this discussion, > the differing function types for threads. And this one is well > justified from the POV of C, int is the type that you'd have > to expect as a return from a thread, just as main returns an int > to the environment. > > On my page for possible defects/improvements for C I am curious if you will get feedback by standardisation committee members for your descriptions. http://p99.gforge.inria.fr/defects-and-improvements/DR-underspecified-thread-functions.html Did you forward any of them to an "official" communication channel? Do the discussed functions just use an interface style that we all know from a function like "free"? http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/free.html Do such standard specifications allow different error handling implementations? Regards, Markus