Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #386
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer |
| Subject | POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) |
| Date | 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <iv0ljc$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> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — 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