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 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <aedpe8-ca1.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7865 |
William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote: > > POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: > > http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions? Certainly there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing. -- Larry Jones Kicking dust is the only part of this game we really like. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <j2ope8-04h.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #8104 |
In comp.unix.programmer lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote: > > > > POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: > > > > http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html > Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions? Certainly > there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but > that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing. The list isn't that long. What distinguishes those interfaces is that they can't be implemented on top of, e.g., the stdio implementation. The original question, as I understood it, was whether the general architecture of Windows was a reasonable fit for a POSIX threads implementation. Most of the library can be implemented without unwarranted chumminess with the underlying implementation, and the remaining pieces--with signals being the biggest question mark--would appear to require only minimal cooperation by the vendor. Not that I believe C1x should adopt pthreads, mind you. Also, the proposal was qualified--it suggested adopting a _subset_ of pthreads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <iveiov$9b4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8110 |
On 07/10/2011 07:09 PM, William Ahern wrote: > In comp.unix.programmer lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote: >>> >>> POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: >>> >>> http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html > >> Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions? Certainly >> there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but >> that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing. > > The list isn't that long. What distinguishes those interfaces is that they > can't be implemented on top of, e.g., the stdio implementation. The original > question, as I understood it, was whether the general architecture of > Windows was a reasonable fit for a POSIX threads implementation. Most of the > library can be implemented without unwarranted chumminess with the > underlying implementation, and the remaining pieces--with signals being the > biggest question mark--would appear to require only minimal cooperation by > the vendor. > > Not that I believe C1x should adopt pthreads, mind you. Also, the proposal > was qualified--it suggested adopting a _subset_ of pthreads. There are two proposals that I'm aware of, neither of which can be accurately described as a "subset of pthreads". The official proposal is for changes to the language and a set of new library functions that could be implemented as thin wrappers for pthreads functions, but are sufficiently generic in their definitions that they could alternatively be implemented as thin wrappers for other threading systems. The second proposal has not been officially made, but has been suggested in a number of forms in this forum. That proposal is that the entire pthreads specification from POSIX should be inserted, by reference, into the C standard. While not explicitly stated, the implications have been that it would need little or no additional wording would be needed, beyond the statement that it has been so incorporated. The list of pthreads features which have not been implemented in Windows is an argument in favor of the official proposal, over the unofficial one. In the unlikely event that the second proposal were accepted, a conforming implementation of C running under Windows would be required to implement all of the items on that list. How difficult would that be? If Microsoft has not even attempted to implement them, I imagine it would be pretty difficult. The fact that even those features which are available, are available only in the POSIX Subsystem of Windows, and not for native Windows programs, is another such argument. If I understand it correctly, the official proposal defines a system that could be made available even for native Windows programs. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <980238F61iU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #8126 |
On 07/11/11 10:20 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > > The list of pthreads features which have not been implemented in Windows > is an argument in favor of the official proposal, over the unofficial > one. In the unlikely event that the second proposal were accepted, a > conforming implementation of C running under Windows would be required > to implement all of the items on that list. How difficult would that be? > If Microsoft has not even attempted to implement them, I imagine it > would be pretty difficult. > > The fact that even those features which are available, are available > only in the POSIX Subsystem of Windows, and not for native Windows > programs, is another such argument. If I understand it correctly, the > official proposal defines a system that could be made available even for > native Windows programs. Maybe those features will be implemented when they get around to implementing C99? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Message-ID | <dnFSp.16196$467.7869@news.usenetserver.com> |
| In reply to | #8104 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes: >William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote: >> >> POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows: >> >> http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html > >Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions? Certainly >there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but >that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing. A quick examination of the list of functions concludes that they fit into one of the following categories: - Not applicable to windows (pthread_atfork, getpwnam_r, et. al.) - An optional POSIX feature (robust mutexes) - stdio & C Library extensions - signals It looks like cancellation points are the most difficult feature of pthreads to implement on windows - this reference notes that the application must explictly code the cancellation points into the application using non-standard API's. scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) |
| Message-ID | <80d8b7bd-ed7d-4b8e-90c3-543a45e7d355@h11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7833 |
On Jul 7, 6:17 am, Noob <r...@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. > > 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? Why didn't they adopt the POSIX API itself? I suspect a couple of reasons. First compatibility with C++0x. Of course, that begs the question of why didn't the C, C++, and POSIX committees when working together decide to adopt the POSIX pthreads standard? Second, the POSIX pthreads standard is underspecified, and incomplete, and slightly buggy. It's buggy in the informal simple specification of try_lock. It's incomplete because it's missing all of the non sequentially consistent atomics, eg: fences and such. And if you're going to specify fences portably, you need a rigorously defined memory model, which C++0x and C1x will give you. In spirit, C1x and C++0x are compatible in spirit with POSIX pthreads. They will give you the same primitives with different names, more or less. Finally, I suppose you could ask why not fix and extend POSIX pthreads? They may have been political, see: Windows. Perhaps they thought they had a better chance to drag Windows kicking and screaming if they made a new standard?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) |
| Message-ID | <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107142259100.3319@login03.caesar.elte.hu> |
| In reply to | #7833 |
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Noob 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. > > 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? Perhaps relevant, from 2010-Jul: "harmonization(?) of threading interfaces between POSIX/SUS and C1X" - POSIX discussion: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.standards.posix.austin.general/2640 - comp.std.c discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_frm/thread/61d6ab42db75f19a/fe2b250e2864d136 lacos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e15c44f$0$22156$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7810 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > 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. Oh really? Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 Published: June 15, 2004 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv4hmg$d5v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7839 |
On 07/07/2011 10:30 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> 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. > > Oh really? > > Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 > Published: June 15, 2004 > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx I looked that over, and couldn't find any direct statement about how well it conforms with POSIX requirements for pthreads. I did find a couple of comments which suggested that it might not meet all of them. I look forward to hearing a detailed description of it's supposed flaws, so I can evaluation the truth of the claim that it falls short of being fully conforming. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7dub17hfd3mrcqu7iepimmbggbadouirf0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7839 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:30:13 +0100, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: >lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Oh really? > >Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 >Published: June 15, 2004 > >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx Windows SFU gets you a pretty good Unix environment, where you can compile and run your Unix applications. It is largely separate from the Windows API side of things, and there's little or no ability to use the Windows APIs in an WSFU application (or vice versa). So the fact that MS (with some outside help) has implemented WSFU on top of the NT native API (which is *not* the Win32 API, but the Win32 API is built on top of the native API too), says nothing about the practicality of implementing pthreads on top of the Win32 threading functions. Doubtless you could do a subset, but that won't be wholly satisfactory in either direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5q4a$duv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7866 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:30:13 +0100, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> >>> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it >>> than I do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of >>> Windows because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that >>> Windows doesn't provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads >>> requires. >> >> Oh really? >> >> Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 >> Published: June 15, 2004 >> >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx > > > Windows SFU gets you a pretty good Unix environment, where you can > compile and run your Unix applications. It is largely separate from > the Windows API side of things, and there's little or no ability to > use the Windows APIs in an WSFU application (or vice versa). > > So the fact that MS (with some outside help) has implemented WSFU on > top of the NT native API (which is *not* the Win32 API, but the Win32 > API is built on top of the native API too), I hypothesize that SOME of the Win32 is built on top of native, but not ALL or even MOST of it. The low-level native has to exist for capability or performance reasons, but once enough code is laid down to work at a higher level of abstraction, and when one can, one does (they do), surely. (By "built on top of" I mean, "implemented in terms of", actually). > says nothing about the > practicality of implementing pthreads on top of the Win32 threading > functions. Doubtless you could do a subset, but that won't be wholly > satisfactory in either direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv689n$cu1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7917 |
On 7/7/2011 22:30, MikeP wrote:
> Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> Windows SFU gets you a pretty good Unix environment, where you can
>> compile and run your Unix applications. It is largely separate from
>> the Windows API side of things, and there's little or no ability to
>> use the Windows APIs in an WSFU application (or vice versa).
>>
>> So the fact that MS (with some outside help) has implemented WSFU on
>> top of the NT native API (which is *not* the Win32 API, but the Win32
>> API is built on top of the native API too),
>
> I hypothesize that SOME of the Win32 is built on top of native, but not
> ALL or even MOST of it. The low-level native has to exist for capability
> or performance reasons, but once enough code is laid down to work at a
> higher level of abstraction, and when one can, one does (they do),
> surely. (By "built on top of" I mean, "implemented in terms of",
> actually).
>
You are correct. There is no restriction that the Windows API libraries
cannot depend on other Windows API libraries; the "Portable Executable
and Common Object File Format" (for .EXEs, .DLLs, and others) is the
same, regardless of subsystem. The "basest" of the Windows API
libraries depend on the "native" API, certainly.
Whatever the library that is called upon, the environment had better be
prepared to support it.
Pre-boot programs (OS loader, SCSI driver, etc.)
HAL & Kernel
- Drivers (kernel-land)
- Windows subsystem (kernel-land minority)
- Native-mode programs (user-land)
- Windows subsystem (user-land majority)
- Windows programs (common)
- POSIX subsystem (uncommon, user-land)
- POSIX programs (uncommon)
You can have a Windows XP system with 0 Windows (as in Windows API)
components; strictly POSIX. The more environments, the merrier! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e1ce9f0$0$6872$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7866 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > Windows SFU gets you a pretty good Unix environment, where you can > compile and run your Unix applications. It is largely separate from > the Windows API side of things, and there's little or no ability to > use the Windows APIs in an WSFU application (or vice versa). > > So the fact that MS (with some outside help) has implemented WSFU on > top of the NT native API (which is not the Win32 API, but the Win32 > API is built on top of the native API too), says nothing about the > practicality of implementing pthreads on top of the Win32 threading > functions. It was already proven that it is possible to create and provide a standard- complying pthreads API in Windows. The "practicality" of doing so is irrelevant, as what counts is that it is there, it is available and users are able to rely on a standard-compliang C threading API in Windows. And finally, let's not confuse technical impossibilities with an unwillingness to provide some features. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivj00h$3hs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8210 |
On 07/12/2011 08:35 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: ... > It was already proven that it is possible to create and provide a standard- > complying pthreads API in Windows. So, you're referring to something other than the implementation described on <http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html>. That implementation fails to fully comply due to the items listed in the section which says "The following functions are not implemented:". So, what is this other pthreads API in Windows, the one that does implement all of those functions, and therefore counts as complying? How may I clearly distinguish that API from the one described on the web page referred above? -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ivart8$fjm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7839 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> 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. > > Oh really? > > Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 > Published: June 15, 2004 > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads which can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.07.10.01.06.52@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #8047 |
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:31:35 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote: > Rui Maciel wrote: >> lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Oh really? >> >> Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5 >> Published: June 15, 2004 >> >> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463209.aspx > > ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads which > can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to > do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs. ... And none of this has anything to do with the OP's original question. Todd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e1ce7a6$0$6872$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #8047 |
J. J. Farrell wrote: > ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads According to Microsoft's site, their pthreads implementation was released in 2004 and it conforms to IEEE 1003.1-2001. As that standard was updated in 2004 to include an errata and after that ony in 2008 then I fail to see your point. > which > can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to > do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs. It appears you are confused. Larry Jones' assertion was that "POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows", which was already demonstrated to be false. I don't know what you mean by "can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem" but independent of what you meant, but that doesn't contradict the fact that it is quite possible to provide a standard- conforming pthreads interface to windows. And if it is possible to provide an API in an OS then the only thing that stops you from using it is your will to use it. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivj16e$8m3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8209 |
On 07/12/2011 08:25 PM, Rui Maciel wrote: > J. J. Farrell wrote: > >> ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads > > According to Microsoft's site, their pthreads implementation was released in > 2004 and it conforms to IEEE 1003.1-2001. As that standard was updated in > 2004 to include an errata and after that ony in 2008 then I fail to see your > point. The point is that the cited web page makes no claim that Microsoft's pthreads implementation fully complies with any version of POSIX later than 2001. You'd think that if they did actually go to the effort of complying with the current POSIX standard, they'd mention that fact. >> which >> can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to >> do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs. > > It appears you are confused. Larry Jones' assertion was that "POSIX threads > cannot be implemented on top of Windows", which was already demonstrated to > be false. I don't know what you mean by "can only be used in programs > running in the POSIX subsystem" Can you write a program that makes use of arbitrary Windows features, just like any other ordinary Windows program, AND also makes use of the Windows version of pthreads? Larry's comments imply that there are Windows-specific facilities that are not available to programs running under the POSIX subsystem. I wandered around the Microsoft web site for a while; I found lots of statements suggesting that the POSIX Subsystem provides a very Unix-like environment; but I couldn't find anything which addressed the issue of whether or not Windows-specific features are available to programs operating in that environment. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o7f1f8-5rd.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #8209 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > > It appears you are confused. Larry Jones' assertion was that "POSIX threads > cannot be implemented on top of Windows", which was already demonstrated to > be false. We have different definitons of what "on top of Windows" means. I mean "on top of the normal Win32 environment subsystem that essentially all Windows users and applications use", not "on top of the bare Windows kernel". > I don't know what you mean by "can only be used in programs > running in the POSIX subsystem" It means that pthreads are only available in the POSIX environment subsystem that hardly anyone uses because it provides *only* a Unix-like environment and not the Win32 environment that most users and application expect. For example, in the POSIX environment, file names look like "/bin/ls", not "C:\Program Files\dir.exe". The two environments are completely separate (although implemented on top of the same kernel) and you have to pick one or the other; you can't use both at the same time. -- Larry Jones If I was being raised in a better environment, I wouldn't do things like that. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ivqrb5$kc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8209 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > J. J. Farrell wrote: > >> ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads > > According to Microsoft's site, their pthreads implementation was released in > 2004 and it conforms to IEEE 1003.1-2001. As that standard was updated in > 2004 to include an errata and after that ony in 2008 then I fail to see your > point. You emphasise my point while failing to see it, which is curious. Windows Services for UNIX 3.5 implements a subset of pthreads as defined by POSIX 2001. The current definition of pthreads is provided by POSIX 2008, two generations of POSIX later. The version of POSIX threads implemented for the POSIX subsystem of Windows is a subset of POSIX threads as it was defined seven years and two generations before the current POSIX Standard. >> which >> can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to >> do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs. > > It appears you are confused. I don't believe so. > Larry Jones' assertion was that "POSIX threads > cannot be implemented on top of Windows", which was already demonstrated to > be false. I've not seen any such demonstration. An implementation of a subset of an old version of pthreads for an isolated subsystem which is rarely if ever used but happens to run on Windows' NT kernel is hardly relevant. > I don't know what you mean by "can only be used in programs > running in the POSIX subsystem" I mean exactly what I say. Almost everyone, in almost every circumstance, when talking about writing user-level software for "Windows", is talking about writing software for "the Win32 subsystem on Windows". I don't know Larry, but I'll happily bet that's what he meant since that is what almost everyone almost always means by that shorthand. Most people who write user-mode software for Windows aren't even aware that other subsystems can run on the NT kernel. Even if there were a conforming implementation of pthreads which could run in the POSIX subsystem on top of NT, what possible relevance is that to the 99.99999% of Windows user mode software which runs in the Win32 subsystem? That software can't make any use the pthreads implementation, it can't use it instead of the Win32 threading primitives, it can't interact with it. > but independent of what you meant, but that > doesn't contradict the fact that it is quite possible to provide a standard- > conforming pthreads interface to windows. Even the implementation which runs in the POSIX subsystem doesn't conform to POSIX; what evidence do you have for this claim that it is possible to provide a conforming implementation for use by Windows programmers, which means one that runs in the Win32 subsystem? > And if it is possible to provide > an API in an OS then the only thing that stops you from using it is your > will to use it. If it is possible, and if someone reliable chooses to implement and supply such an implementation for the Win32 subsystem at no additional cost, then you are obviously quite right and there wouldn't be this discussion. In this world though, no such implementation exists and there are doubts that one is even possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web