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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97ufrbFpbuU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8105 |
On 07/11/11 08:03 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Rui Maciel<rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: >> lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> >>> Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and >>> even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely >>> no one uses it. >> >> Where do you base that claim? > > On the fact that I've never heard a single person say they use it. On > the other hand, I've heard lots of people say they use cygwin, which is > very similar. > >> What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you actually >> know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even windows fits the >> description of a "unix-like" system. > > Invoking Humpty Dumpty, when I use the phrase it means a system derived > from Unix or specifically designed to emulate it. That would include > all the commercial versions of Unix, the various BSDs, and Linux. It > does not include radically different systems that have emulation > subsystems or libraries that provide a unix-like environment that is not > compatible with the native environment specifically to allow porting > Unix programs with minimal change or being checklist compatible with > requirements to provide POSIX like VMS or Windows. So you exclude the RTOSs with a POSIX layer? That's where just about all of the C code I write these days lives. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s9vse8-qj8.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #8106 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 07/11/11 08:03 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > > > > Invoking Humpty Dumpty, when I use the phrase it means a system derived > > from Unix or specifically designed to emulate it. That would include > > all the commercial versions of Unix, the various BSDs, and Linux. It > > does not include radically different systems that have emulation > > subsystems or libraries that provide a unix-like environment that is not > > compatible with the native environment specifically to allow porting > > Unix programs with minimal change or being checklist compatible with > > requirements to provide POSIX like VMS or Windows. > > So you exclude the RTOSs with a POSIX layer? That's where just about > all of the C code I write these days lives. I don't have any experience with them, so I can't say which group they fall into. -- Larry Jones I hate it when they look at me that way. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <982c3sF9s0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8152 |
On 07/12/11 04:31 PM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 07/11/11 08:03 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >>> >>> Invoking Humpty Dumpty, when I use the phrase it means a system derived >>> from Unix or specifically designed to emulate it. That would include >>> all the commercial versions of Unix, the various BSDs, and Linux. It >>> does not include radically different systems that have emulation >>> subsystems or libraries that provide a unix-like environment that is not >>> compatible with the native environment specifically to allow porting >>> Unix programs with minimal change or being checklist compatible with >>> requirements to provide POSIX like VMS or Windows. >> >> So you exclude the RTOSs with a POSIX layer? That's where just about >> all of the C code I write these days lives. > > I don't have any experience with them, so I can't say which group they > fall into. Most RTOS were designed with their own process and threading models and they were not designed to emulate UNIX. They have adopted a POSIX layer for the reason it was originally proposed in this sub-thread: portability. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivh6b9$hvq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8159 |
On 07/12/2011 03:39 AM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/12/11 04:31 PM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: ... >>> So you exclude the RTOSs with a POSIX layer? That's where just about >>> all of the C code I write these days lives. >> >> I don't have any experience with them, so I can't say which group they >> fall into. > > Most RTOS were designed with their own process and threading models and > they were not designed to emulate UNIX. > > They have adopted a POSIX layer for the reason it was originally > proposed in this sub-thread: portability. How fully does they implement implement POSIX pthreads? Are their implementations typically more, or less, complete than the Windows implementation that has been discussed elsewhere in this thread? -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <982l5uF9s0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8163 |
On 07/12/11 10:06 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 07/12/2011 03:39 AM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/12/11 04:31 PM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > .... >>>> So you exclude the RTOSs with a POSIX layer? That's where just about >>>> all of the C code I write these days lives. >>> >>> I don't have any experience with them, so I can't say which group they >>> fall into. >> >> Most RTOS were designed with their own process and threading models and >> they were not designed to emulate UNIX. >> >> They have adopted a POSIX layer for the reason it was originally >> proposed in this sub-thread: portability. > > How fully does they implement implement POSIX pthreads? Are their > implementations typically more, or less, complete than the Windows > implementation that has been discussed elsewhere in this thread? It's been a wee while since I went into the details, but the two I'm familiar with are: Green Hill Integtity: http://www.ghs.com/news/20040802_posix.html and VxWorks: http://www.windriver.com/products/vxworks/ (certifications bottom left). -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv5eaf$e5m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7809 |
On 7/7/2011 00:22, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Rui Maciel<rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This argument is absurd, as pthreads was from the start designed with >> portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a pthreads >> implementation. > > Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and > even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely > no one uses it. pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. Heheheh. I use it (Interix POSIX subsystem for NT-descended Windows), but haven't used pthreads on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5unr$3eb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7795 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> 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. > > This argument is absurd, as pthreads was from the start designed with > portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a pthreads > implementation. The only reason why Microsoft opted to avoid > pthreads and instead go with their home-brew version of a threading > API is their pathological reaction to open standards and their need > to artificially hinder anything remotely related to portability. Or maybe it was just to Unixy/Ugly? > > Now, by intentionally neglecting a widely adopted international > standard Presumption of technical merit based upon... what? Time in grade? Connections? Politics? Voting? You seem to be absurdly arguing. > for a threading API for the C which which already exists for > over a decade, You are arguing against yourself with that point, for old is old, not necessarily good, and likely obsolete. > those who push this absurd initiative are essentially > forcing the C standardization process to incorporate a dumb approach > to a problem which is not technical But forcing an existing standard is technical and OK? > and instead caused by nothing > more than a single company's refusal to respect, let alone follow > standards. But I thought the role of the committee and the standard was to codify existing practice and is therefore the follower, not the leader. IOW, a glorified secretary!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbox70xby.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7772 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes:
> 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.
I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just
incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads)
into the C standard not have been a good solution?
(This is basically the same question Rui Maciel asked, but without
the, um, colorful observations.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <37pfe8-4gl.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7796 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just > incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) > into the C standard not have been a good solution? My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. -- Larry Jones Just when I thought this junk was beginning to make sense. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv42dd$ed2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7810 |
On 07/07/2011 12:27 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> >> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just >> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) >> into the C standard not have been a good solution? > > My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I > do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows > because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't > provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and I'm curious about the reasons myself. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv42p1$4k1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7824 |
Le 07/07/11 12:39, James Kuyper a écrit : > On 07/07/2011 12:27 AM, lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just >>> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) >>> into the C standard not have been a good solution? >> >> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I >> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows >> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't >> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. > > Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the > problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and > I'm curious about the reasons myself. Specially if Microsoft itself has done it: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx Impossible? Not for Microsoft :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200 |
| Subject | POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) |
| Message-ID | <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7824 |
James Kuyper wrote: > Lawrence Jones wrote: > >> Keith Thompson wrote: >> >>> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just >>> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) >>> into the C standard not have been a good solution? >> >> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I >> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows >> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't >> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. > > Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the > problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and > I'm curious about the reasons myself. Please note: I've added comp.unix.programmer (for the POSIX aspects) and comp.programming.threads (for the threading aspect) We've been discussing the next revision of the C standard (C1X) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X Specifically, the inclusion of multi-threading support. Apparently, Dinkumware's library is being considered, and some are wondering why the committee did not consider adopting the POSIX API itself, or a subset thereof. Would enlightened people in either comp.unix.programmer or comp.programming.threads comment on these aspects? Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <c1ahe8-hi.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #7833 |
In comp.unix.programmer Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > > Lawrence Jones wrote: > > > >> Keith Thompson wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just > >>> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) > >>> into the C standard not have been a good solution? > >> > >> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I > >> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows > >> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't > >> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. > > > > Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the > > problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and > > I'm curious about the reasons myself. POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html But anyone who has used POSIX threads and Windows' native API quickly learns that they're quite different approaches. The biggest difference that I'm aware of is that Windows' mutexes cannot be statically initialized. pthreads-win32 handles this with a global Windows' CriticalSection in pthread_mutex_lock(). AFAIK, the C1x proposal doesn't allow statically initialized objects, presumably so the interface can be implemented atop Windows' API without such ugliness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <97mi1gFbcvU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7865 |
On 07/ 8/11 06:21 AM, William Ahern wrote: > In comp.unix.programmer Noob<root@127.0.0.1> wrote: >> James Kuyper wrote: >>> Lawrence Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just >>>>> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) >>>>> into the C standard not have been a good solution? >>>> >>>> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I >>>> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows >>>> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't >>>> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. >>> >>> Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the >>> problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and >>> I'm curious about the reasons myself. > > POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: > > http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html > > But anyone who has used POSIX threads and Windows' native API quickly learns > that they're quite different approaches. The biggest difference that I'm > aware of is that Windows' mutexes cannot be statically initialized. > pthreads-win32 handles this with a global Windows' CriticalSection in > pthread_mutex_lock(). AFAIK, the C1x proposal doesn't allow statically > initialized objects, presumably so the interface can be implemented atop > Windows' API without such ugliness. Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is beyond the C standard. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <487c17t7h0f64f1mjmm83gj5f080o56cfa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7877 |
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 07/ 8/11 06:21 AM, William Ahern wrote: >> In comp.unix.programmer Noob<root@127.0.0.1> wrote: >>> James Kuyper wrote: >>>> Lawrence Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not very familiar with this area, but why would just >>>>>> incorporating POSIX threads (or perhaps a subset of POSIX threads) >>>>>> into the C standard not have been a good solution? >>>>> >>>>> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I >>>>> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows >>>>> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't >>>>> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires. >>>> >>>> Could you ask those people to provide a more detailed explanation of the >>>> problem? I doubt that a naked assertion will convince Rui Maciel, and >>>> I'm curious about the reasons myself. >> >> POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: >> >> http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html >> >> But anyone who has used POSIX threads and Windows' native API quickly learns >> that they're quite different approaches. The biggest difference that I'm >> aware of is that Windows' mutexes cannot be statically initialized. >> pthreads-win32 handles this with a global Windows' CriticalSection in >> pthread_mutex_lock(). AFAIK, the C1x proposal doesn't allow statically >> initialized objects, presumably so the interface can be implemented atop >> Windows' API without such ugliness. > >Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x proposal >doesn't include them probably because the process model is beyond the C >standard. Sure. Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system wide. Access is controlled by the security attributes specified when the object is created. There are some local synchronization object, most notably Critical Sections, which cannot be shared across processes (the advantage being that their much lighter weight).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <iv5p2f$95u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7884 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x >> proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is >> beyond the C standard. > > > Sure. Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system wide. CAN be. If you name them, THEN they can be used amongst processes. Unnamed synch objects are intra-process. Whether having unnamed synch objects makes them lighter-weight (higher performance) in usage, I don't know. Simple enough to profile though. > Access is controlled by the security attributes specified when the > object is created. There are some local synchronization object, most > notably Critical Sections, which cannot be shared across processes > (the advantage being that their much lighter weight).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <tp1d17ln6tcrq8mt4vffsqitnr8h4lfc66@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7915 |
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:12:33 -0500, "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote: >Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x >>> proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is >>> beyond the C standard. >> >> >> Sure. Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system wide. > >CAN be. If you name them, THEN they can be used amongst processes. >Unnamed synch objects are intra-process. Whether having unnamed synch >objects makes them lighter-weight (higher performance) in usage, I don't >know. Simple enough to profile though. Not true. Unnamed objects can be shared with child processes under the correct circumstances. Alternatively, and more generally, you can use DuplicateHandle on an unnamed object and create a (new) handle to that object for another process to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <iv6286$i64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7936 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:12:33 -0500, "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote: > >> Robert Wessel wrote: >>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins >>> <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x >>>> proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is >>>> beyond the C standard. >>> >>> >>> Sure. Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system >>> wide. >> >> CAN be. If you name them, THEN they can be used amongst processes. >> Unnamed synch objects are intra-process. Whether having unnamed synch >> objects makes them lighter-weight (higher performance) in usage, I >> don't know. Simple enough to profile though. > > > Not true. Unnamed objects can be shared with child processes under > the correct circumstances. OK. Then I should have wrote: "Unnamed synch objects are GENERALLY intra-process" (or some such). (I should have not included additional thoughts and stopped at the first carriage return perhaps). > Alternatively, and more generally, you can > use DuplicateHandle on an unnamed object and create a (new) handle to > that object for another process to use. Sounds like a roundabout way of doing the same thing as naming an object though. Anyway, my point was that they are not NECESSARILY system-wide, and your statement implied the opposite. You maybe should have said something like: "Most of the synchronization objects in Windows CAN BE system wide". (I would have used "inter-process" some way instead of "system wide").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <j1bme3$vsa$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7915 |
On 7/7/2011 7:12 PM, MikeP wrote: > Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x >>> proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is >>> beyond the C standard. >> >> >> Sure. Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system wide. > > CAN be. If you name them, THEN they can be used amongst processes. > Unnamed synch objects are intra-process. Whether having unnamed synch > objects makes them lighter-weight (higher performance) in usage, I don't > know. Simple enough to profile though. > these mutexes are very expensive, almost absurdly slow. a lock/unlock cycle takes around 1-2us, which is far longer than most operations one may reasonably want to lock (on a reasonably modern computer, this is around 3000 to 6000 clock cycles). "Critical Sections" are a bit faster, and so are preferable to the generic mutex objects (but, much faster than dead slow is still not necessarily fast). much faster IME was to implement a spinlock-with-sleeep operation (using "InterlockedExchange", ...), which can generally handle locking/unlocking in the low ns range (more around 5ns or so). the above fast mutexes make a lot more sense when ones' goal is something like: lock mutex; add entry to cross-thread linked list (such as a message queue); unlock mutex. or: the corresponding action to remove something from a linked-list. rather than... whatever the hell MS intends their mutexes for...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <97nhe8-u1i.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #7877 |
In comp.unix.programmer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 07/ 8/11 06:21 AM, William Ahern wrote: <snip> > > But anyone who has used POSIX threads and Windows' native API quickly learns > > that they're quite different approaches. The biggest difference that I'm > > aware of is that Windows' mutexes cannot be statically initialized. > > pthreads-win32 handles this with a global Windows' CriticalSection in > > pthread_mutex_lock(). AFAIK, the C1x proposal doesn't allow statically > > initialized objects, presumably so the interface can be implemented atop > > Windows' API without such ugliness. > > Does the windows API support process shared mutexes? The C1x proposal > doesn't include them probably because the process model is beyond the C > standard. Yes, according to MSDN: Multiple processes can have handles of the same mutex object, enabling use of the object for interprocess synchronization. The following object-sharing mechanisms are available: o A child process created by the CreateProcess function can inherit a handle to a mutex object if the lpMutexAttributes parameter of CreateMutex enabled inheritance. This mechanism works for both named and unnamed mutexes. o A process can specify the handle to a mutex object in a call to the DuplicateHandle function to create a duplicate handle that can be used by another process. This mechanism works for both named and unnamed mutexes. o A process can specify a named mutex in a call to the OpenMutex or CreateMutex function to retrieve a handle to the mutex object. Use the CloseHandle function to close the handle. The system closes the handle automatically when the process terminates. The mutex object is destroyed when its last handle has been closed. -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682411%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web