Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.programming.threads > #386

POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?)

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
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 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:17:58 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 34
Message-ID <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
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$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Injection-Date Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:17:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="/kYD1/UXPcKeTReVSbbj3Q"; logging-data="7477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+H+fHwo6YGJzPoUbzs1K6g7TZXw/+oIzs="
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
In-Reply-To <iv42dd$ed2$2@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock sha1:Zu8ne+00kHpyDiXkGtoPMko0aPg=
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:7833 comp.programming.threads:386 comp.unix.programmer:889

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw


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


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