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>
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

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>