Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:36:34 +1200
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <980238F61iU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <5fa80219-4bc8-4af8-9766-54501eb5ab90@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <iusm9i$g3g$1@dont-email.me> <iuso52$shb$1@dont-email.me> <iussos$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> <j2ope8-04h.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <iveiov$9b4$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net fVRDUr4gOFUGLI9Ne8z1kgskjuz2UD+JZuyzbzy3KWCRkIW3oG
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwSeMmLpLp+ZHBLd/JQsYTMs4zw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4
In-Reply-To: <iveiov$9b4$1@dont-email.me>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:8129 comp.programming.threads:418 comp.unix.programmer:932

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