Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jens Gustedt Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c Subject: Re: Clarification for interface specification "C11 threads.h" Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:35:24 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 40 Message-ID: <506D747C.3060105@loria.fr> 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> <506BFF09.1090804@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a5c18addaa58cf05a8c5d627b8257be9"; logging-data="14099"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jJxHAWpVjFKka9+89UK+AeI5UI9OHuQI=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 In-Reply-To: <506BFF09.1090804@web.de> Cancel-Lock: sha1:g4ewJaxXJk0kDwnYMJwWOOA0Ebc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:27016 comp.programming.threads:1174 comp.std.c:1689 Hello, Am 03.10.2012 11:02, schrieb Markus Elfring: >> 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? I am not sure what channel that would be, the ISO committees don't seem to be very open to the outside world. But as Keith suggest, comp.std.c has probably better chances to be read, so I am crossposting there. > 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? Yes, I think so. It clearly defines under what circumstances the behavior is undefined, so an implementation would be allowed to define a behavior as it wishes in these cases. Generally, if you look at the text for free that you are citing, and compare it with the text about the threads in C11, you'll notice a difference in quality. C11 certainly lacked some iterations of discussion and error correction before it went into the standard. In particular, a better coordination with the POSIX committee would have been in order concerning threads. Jens