Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Ian Collins Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:46:47 +1300 Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ibUtVz57Y1bgn1kLVi7NHw2blInY4hNH4Tftez5P66S9/hfYpy Cancel-Lock: sha1:pYLsYQvGbM04S98p7t+DfoptMFc= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.unix.programmer:8255 On 03/29/16 21:32, spud@potato.field wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:31:44 +1300 > Ian Collins wrote: >> On 03/18/16 22:44, spud@potato.field wrote: >>> How do you suggest it does concurrency if it doesn't use OS threads? Roll its >>> own multithreading like java? Give me a break. >> >> The compiler not only uses OS threads, but it needs to be aware of them >> in order to generate the best code. Probably the the addition of atomic > > If its not aware of them it won't be generating any of its own threading code. Isn't that what I said? >> operations to both C and C++ was even more useful. Adding threads and > > They can add atomics to the language - but if its not supported by the OS > then they won't work. Have you seen the name of this group? >> atomics to the language makes the job of the humble cross-platform >> developer that be easier. > > Any code sufficiently complex to use threading will almost certainly be using > other OS specific functionality which the compiler doesn't support other than > via libraries, plus there will invariably be platform specific threading > options that a generic model can't by definition include so I really don't see > the point. Nope. I have code that runs quite happily using the standard library on naked ARM and hosted Unix and windoze. > Also why did they stop at multithreading in the language? What about the far > more useful multiprocess? Surely nothing to do with Windows still not being > able to support it properly... No demand? -- Ian Collins