Groups > comp.programming.threads > #396

Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows

From	"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer
Subject	Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows
Date	2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<iv5p2f$95u$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <iv42dd$ed2$2@dont-email.me> <iv4blu$79l$1@dont-email.me> <c1ahe8-hi.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <97mi1gFbcvU4@mid.individual.net> <487c17t7h0f64f1mjmm83gj5f080o56cfa@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:07:30 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

>> Does the windows API support process shared mutexes?  The C1x
>> proposal doesn't include them probably because the process model is
>> beyond the C standard.
>
>
> Sure.  Most of the synchronization objects in Windows are system wide.

CAN be. If you name them, THEN they can be used amongst processes. 
Unnamed synch objects are intra-process. Whether having unnamed synch 
objects makes them lighter-weight (higher performance) in usage, I don't 
know. Simple enough to profile though.

> Access is controlled by the security attributes specified when the
> object is created.  There are some local synchronization object, most
> notably Critical Sections, which cannot be shared across processes
> (the advantage being that their much lighter weight).

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