Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #7572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is fixed or not ? David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> - 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200
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 (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
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100
Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 04:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 12:22 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 16:14 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-17 08:01 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-16 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-17 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-19 01:14 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 00:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 22:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:09 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:24 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:38 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-16 11:46 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-16 14:53 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5ttm$vv0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7772 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to >> me >> that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently >> implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would >> almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX >> standard. > > That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically > designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the > Standard) to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of > either pthreads or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs > to be easily portable to either system. It does not provide access > to all of the features of either system, but it does provide access > to the commonly used ones in a portable manner. My understanding is > that it is in active use by Dinkumware itself as well as its > customers. Would it be fair though to give one company such preference when there are others chomping at the bit to play in that arena?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6883b09-0199-4695-91f3-9788db6767f6@x16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7688 |
On Jul 6, 3:41 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX
> threading and C201X threading are?
The most important thing with C threading is that in C99, threads
_don't exist_. Therefore, compilers may produce code that is correct
in the absence of threads, but not in the presence of threads, whether
they are POSIX or future C Standard threads. C with threads adds the
most important rule that if two threads access _different_ memory
objects, then those accesses don't interfere. (Different memory
objects are just different objects, with the exception of consecutive
bit fields). For example:
struct X { double d; int i; short s; char c1; char c2; };
extern struct X a, b;
...
a.d = b.d; a.i = b.i; a.s = b.s; a.c1 = b.c1; // a.c2 is unchanged.
On some implementations, the compiler could generate the following
code:
Load a.c2 into an integer register.
Load the whole of b into a 16 byte vector register.
Store the whole 16 vector register into a.
Store the integer register back to a.c2.
In C99, that would be legal (because threads don't exist). In C with
threads, that would be a compiler bug (in case another thread reads
a.c2 just at the wrong time).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv43oj$l51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7801 |
On 07/06/2011 08:24 PM, christian.bau wrote: > On Jul 6, 3:41�am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote: > >> Can somebody who's familiar with both comment on how similar POSIX >> threading and C201X threading are? > > The most important thing with C threading is that in C99, threads > _don't exist_. The question was about C201X, not C99; your answer does not, as far as I can tell, say anything significant about C201X. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97i0lfFo68U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7687 |
On 07/ 6/11 02:21 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > >> Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having >> native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and >> C++. > > The case regarding C++ isn't comparable, because using pthreads with C++'s > OO features forced the programmer to jump through loops, and there wasn't > any standard way of handling threads "the C++ way". Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a library. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13d1f8$0$20922$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7690 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a > library. As I've stated in a previous thread, the pthreads standard defines an API, not a library. Adding to this, the pthreads standard defines an API, and the section of C201x's draft covering atomics only defines an API. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4E140DCE.2050806@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #7690 |
Am 06.07.2011 04:46, schrieb Ian Collins: > On 07/ 6/11 02:21 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a > library. I disagree. I consider the library part of the new standard about atomic operations the most interesting one. Compiler vendors already provide extensions for this (I know particularly of gcc) and it is a very interesting move to standardize this. In particular I think you don't need support of atomic types (_Atomic in C1x) to implement these new library calls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu453$3mq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7598 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit : >> On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >>>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it >>>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the >>>> language as it was. > >> The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his >> comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the >> ones made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be >> one of the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a >> judgment the multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed >> that it won't actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've >> insufficient experience with such things to judge. > > That will be a catastrophe. > > There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi- > threaded code in C: > > (1) POSIX pthreads > (2) Windows threads > > The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a > standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support > is completely unconnected with software construction realities. That seems to be either a silly statement or propaganda, for C (and C++) lag behind industry usage, and the ISO just tries to bring some order to the madness (or so I have heard). > > The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because > they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to > implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them. > > Implementing multi threading support however is completely different. > > This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors > will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do. I think I know where you are coming from: wishful thinking. I'm sure you can or will be able to do something eventually, but it doesn't sound like anything original.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iuu7ni$k3f$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7644 |
Le 05/07/11 06:20, MikeP a écrit : > > I think I know where you are coming from: wishful thinking. I'm sure you > can or will be able to do something eventually, but it doesn't sound like > anything original. WOW ! I am scared, completely shaken by your terrible words. When I am done with this message I will immediately commit suicide obviously, since you have just sealed my fate. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5d64$8ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7653 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 05/07/11 06:20, MikeP a écrit : >> >> I think I know where you are coming from: wishful thinking. I'm sure >> you can or will be able to do something eventually, but it doesn't >> sound like anything original. > > WOW ! > > I am scared, completely shaken by your terrible words. > > When I am done with this message I will immediately commit suicide > obviously, since you have just sealed my fate. > > :-) I've seen nothing compelling, new or of quality yet from you, hence I suggest you are operating from an "ignorance is bliss" mode. Else produce or prove something already instead of just ranting. Is it done yet? Why not? When will it be? BTW, what is it? Yesterday it was a library, today it's a simple and better C (aka, C + (--(C++))? ), tomorrow it will be what? It's all very vague, and doesn't the committee codify solid, known, proven, ubiquitous stuff? If so, where is this solid, known, proven, ubiquitous "stuff" you want the committee to consider for preparation or inclusion in the standard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c18da46b-05c7-4cca-9cf2-0ff1552ca245@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7598 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit : ... > > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his > > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones > > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the > > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't > > actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with > > such things to judge. > > That will be a catastrophe. > > There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi- > threaded code in C: > > (1) POSIX pthreads > (2) Windows threads > > The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a > standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support > is completely unconnected with software construction realities. There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's some hope for you yet! If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather than being written separately for each environment. This is a relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and advantage. I certainly hope that someone will have proven that the new features are implementable, by implementing them, before the final vote is made on the decision to mandate them. Do you have any rational reason to think that they won't be? > The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because > they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to > implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them. They weren't widely supported ... because they were easy to implement?! Do you think they would have been more widely adopted if they had been harder to implement? ... > > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > > the most popular requests in this forum... > > I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in > this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my > memory serves The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately. However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people, including yourself. > It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is I have no desire to support them any farther than I actually am in agreement with them. As I'm frequently in disagreement with them, and have frequently expressed such disagreement, I'm at a loss as to how you could conclude otherwise. ... > The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the > documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library. Well, in that case it should be pretty easy to confirm whether the proposal can be implemented; if nothing else, Plaugher can make the needed modifications to his own library, and determine whether they work. Since his library is fairly popular, that also suggests that there's a reasonable amount of existing experience with how to use a library that's not too different from the final proposal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13c58a$0$20928$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7681 |
jameskuyper wrote: > jacob navia wrote: >> The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a >> standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support >> is completely unconnected with software construction realities. > > There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work > with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the > key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative > approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather > refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's > some hope for you yet! > > If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit > for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities > is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX > environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather > than being written separately for each environment. This is a > relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to > convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and > advantage. As POSIX is already an international standard intended to provide a Portable Operating System Interface, and therefore designed specifically to provide portability, wouldn't it make sense if the new C standard simply referenced this widely established standard instead of designing yet another redundant set of interfaces intended to duplicate (or triplicate) already existing APIs? Refusing to reference existing standards due to pressure from a single platform which is sold by a single vendor doesn't make sense. > I certainly hope that someone will have proven that the new features > are implementable, by implementing them, before the final vote is made > on the decision to mandate them. Do you have any rational reason to > think that they won't be? > >> The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because >> they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to >> implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them. > > They weren't widely supported ... because they were easy to > implement?! Do you think they would have been more widely adopted if > they had been harder to implement? If you read jacob's post you will realize he didn't say that. > ... >> > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >> > the most popular requests in this forum... >> >> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >> memory serves > > The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set > of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately. > However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as > recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with > Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a > serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people, > including yourself. Could you please provide a link to that post, specifically to the post where someone asked for multi-threading support in the next C programming language? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97hvfjFo68U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7685 |
On 07/ 6/11 02:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > jameskuyper wrote: > >> jacob navia wrote: > >>> The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a >>> standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support >>> is completely unconnected with software construction realities. >> >> There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work >> with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the >> key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative >> approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather >> refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's >> some hope for you yet! >> >> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >> advantage. > > As POSIX is already an international standard intended to provide a Portable > Operating System Interface, and therefore designed specifically to provide > portability, wouldn't it make sense if the new C standard simply referenced > this widely established standard instead of designing yet another redundant > set of interfaces intended to duplicate (or triplicate) already existing > APIs? Refusing to reference existing standards due to pressure from a > single platform which is sold by a single vendor doesn't make sense. Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a library. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e13d104$0$20922$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7686 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a > library. The pthreads standard doesn't specify a threading library, it only specifies the API. Therefore, this is a non-issue. Regarding atomics, the ISO/IEC 9899:201x draft defines atomics as "several macros" and "several types and functions" intended to perform atomic operations on data. That is, the section on the draft focuses on the API. Naturally, the aspects pertraining to the language behaviour, specifically the bits regarding memory access, if needed, should be covered in the language definition. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), the draft's section on atomics doesn't specify any behaviour that the language must follow. So, if no behaviour is defined and if the section is dedicated to defining a section of the threading API, why should this be in the C programming standard instead of where it belongs, which is the international standard for the C threading API? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97i2pdFo68U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7693 |
On 07/ 6/11 03:00 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > >> Atomics are a language feature, not something that can be specified in a >> library. > > The pthreads standard doesn't specify a threading library, it only specifies > the API. Therefore, this is a non-issue. > > Regarding atomics, the ISO/IEC 9899:201x draft defines atomics as "several > macros" and "several types and functions" intended to perform atomic > operations on data. That is, the section on the draft focuses on the API. > Naturally, the aspects pertraining to the language behaviour, specifically > the bits regarding memory access, if needed, should be covered in the > language definition. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), the > draft's section on atomics doesn't specify any behaviour that the language > must follow. So, if no behaviour is defined and if the section is dedicated > to defining a section of the threading API, why should this be in the C > programming standard instead of where it belongs, which is the international > standard for the C threading API? Where does the international standard for the C threading API define lock-free types? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e146640$0$20932$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7697 |
Ian Collins wrote: > Where does the international standard for the C threading API define > lock-free types? Where does ISO/IEC 9899:1999 define lock-free types? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97jsvtFo69U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7754 |
On 07/ 7/11 01:36 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > >> Where does the international standard for the C threading API define >> lock-free types? > > Where does ISO/IEC 9899:1999 define lock-free types? It doesn't. There is nothing threading related in C99. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <874o2x65tj.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #7784 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > On 07/ 7/11 01:36 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > > Ian Collins wrote: > > > >> Where does the international standard for the C threading API define > >> lock-free types? > > > > Where does ISO/IEC 9899:1999 define lock-free types? > > It doesn't. There is nothing threading related in C99. So *all* types are lock-free? Likewise, all functions are banana-free. And no structures have any hint of purple. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97nc1iF6tbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7905 |
On 07/ 8/11 11:15 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 07/ 7/11 01:36 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: >>> Ian Collins wrote: >>> >>>> Where does the international standard for the C threading API define >>>> lock-free types? >>> >>> Where does ISO/IEC 9899:1999 define lock-free types? >> >> It doesn't. There is nothing threading related in C99. > > So *all* types are lock-free? Likewise, all functions are banana-free. > And no structures have any hint of purple. If the implementation chooses, yes :) -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv0kqv$buu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7685 |
On 07/05/2011 10:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > jameskuyper wrote: > >> jacob navia wrote: ... > As POSIX is already an international standard intended to provide a Portable > Operating System Interface, and therefore designed specifically to provide > portability, wouldn't it make sense if the new C standard simply referenced > this widely established standard instead of designing yet another redundant > set of interfaces intended to duplicate (or triplicate) already existing > APIs? Refusing to reference existing standards due to pressure from a > single platform which is sold by a single vendor doesn't make sense. Pressure from the vendor is irrelevant; pressure from users is important; and it is, unfortunately, one of the more widely used platforms. I'm agnostic about whether adding threading to the C standard was a good idea, but I can certainly see why it might be desirable to have a threading API that can be used on both Windows and POSIX systems. ... >>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >>> memory serves >> >> The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set >> of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately. >> However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as >> recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with >> Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a >> serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people, >> including yourself. > > Could you please provide a link to that post, specifically to the post where > someone asked for multi-threading support in the next C programming > language? I've had poor results from message links, but you can give it a try: <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/21e07a877fbc1bdd/109b360e785de90c?q=group:comp.lang.c+insubject:Interview+insubject:with+insubject:Mr.+insubject:Stroustrup#109b360e785de90c>; if that link doesn't work for you, search on groups.google.com for a message posted to comp.lang.c with the subject line "Interview with Mr. Stroustrup", and you'll find it quickly enough; more quickly than the time it took you to write a request for a link. The key words from the very first message in that thread were: > Multithreading is the future - many-core processors are already becoming > the norm. Recommendation: C should follow the lead of C++ and standardize > multithreading in the same way. I don't see any way to deny that this is, indeed, an example of someone "asking for multi-threading support in this forum", and far more recently than 10 years ago. But I have faith in jacob; he'll find a way. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e1465b4$0$20932$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7699 |
James Kuyper wrote: > Pressure from the vendor is irrelevant; pressure from users is > important; and it is, unfortunately, one of the more widely used > platforms. I'm agnostic about whether adding threading to the C standard > was a good idea, but I can certainly see why it might be desirable to > have a threading API that can be used on both Windows and POSIX systems. You are implying that it is impossible to use pthreads on a Windows system, which is false[1]. [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx > ... >>>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >>>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >>>> memory serves >>> >>> The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set >>> of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately. >>> However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as >>> recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with >>> Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a >>> serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people, >>> including yourself. >> >> Could you please provide a link to that post, specifically to the post >> where someone asked for multi-threading support in the next C programming >> language? > > I've had poor results from message links, but you can give it a try: > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/21e07a877fbc1bdd/109b360e785de90c?q=group:comp.lang.c+insubject:Interview+insubject:with+insubject:Mr. +insubject:Stroustrup#109b360e785de90c>; > if that link doesn't work for you, search on groups.google.com for a > message posted to comp.lang.c with the subject line "Interview with Mr. > Stroustrup", and you'll find it quickly enough; more quickly than the > time it took you to write a request for a link. > > The key words from the very first message in that thread were: >> Multithreading is the future - many-core processors are already becoming >> the norm. Recommendation: C should follow the lead of C++ and standardize >> multithreading in the same way. > > I don't see any way to deny that this is, indeed, an example of someone > "asking for multi-threading support in this forum", and far more > recently than 10 years ago. But I have faith in jacob; he'll find a way. The problem with that statement is that it reads as if prior to C201x there was no standard for implementing threads in C, which is obviously false. Therefore, if the only case which is made to justify forcing threads into the revamped C standard is that "multi-threading is the future", C++ will have it and that a standard that covers multi-threading in C "provides support for portable and efficient concurrency" then I have to say that the wrong approach is being justified for all the wrong reasons, which includes the suspicion that some proponents are oblivious to current standards that already cover this very same subject. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web