Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #422
| Path | csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer |
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| References | <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <iussos$ndi$1@speranza.aioe.org> <97ek3iFq2bU2@mid.individual.net> <4e13c801$0$20925$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> <lnwrfw1679.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <4e13d4a7$0$20921$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> <iv0ljc$fce$1@dont-email.me> <jobee8-aki.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <lnbox70xby.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <37pfe8-4gl.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <iv42dd$ed2$2@dont-email.me> <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> <c1ahe8-hi.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <aedpe8-ca1.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <dnFSp.16196$467.7869@news.usenetserver.com> |
| User-Agent | XPN/1.2.6 (Street Spirit ; Linux) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Date | Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:30:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1drte8-a96.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk> (permalink) |
| Lines | 32 |
| Organization | Zen Internet |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 454767ed.news.zen.co.uk |
| X-Trace | DXC=73L<Vc_Na=VlmDmddMoV?Znok4Z\<mH4YhDU:2=XKPkXgDRJo<^E3<UTDhc?`3Q0aXUiYi8AL9^P[^DKU[>[DRaY |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@zen.co.uk |
| Xref | x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.programming.threads:422 comp.unix.programmer:937 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
Scott Lurndal wrote: > 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 Robust mutexes are not optional in POSIX. They were a new addition in the current (2008) standard; it looks like the pthreads-win32 implementation still targets the old 2001 standard. (The web page says _POSIX_THREADS etc. are defined as 200112L.) However, since robust mutexes are mentioned in the conformance status perhaps an update to POSIX 2008 is planned. -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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 Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-07-12 13:30 +0100
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
csiph-web