Groups > comp.programming.threads > #407

Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.std.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer
Subject	Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe
Date	2011-07-09 06:57 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<iv9c77$5dj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <iv58m6$5vo$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4e53ba11-fea9-4896-8bb9-6b45acb6e18f@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <iv5ep3$it3$2@speranza.aioe.org> <3de2d9ab-e52a-4eb3-a726-b5bed4ce7eef@q1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <a4b696f0-5d1a-4e7a-8988-981c82a89969@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/08/2011 01:47 PM, sfuerst wrote:
...
> This is incorrect.  There are multiple libraries implementing the
> posix threading library for the Microsoft windows platform.  None of
> them have difficulty supporting the fact that posix mutexes require
> the possibility of static initialization.  A simple google search for
> "pthread windows" will give examples of how to do it.

On 2011-07-07, in c.l.c, c.p.t, and c.u.p, in a message with the subject
"POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows", William Ahern wrote:
...
> But anyone who has used POSIX threads and Windows' native API quickly learns
> that they're quite different approaches. The biggest difference that I'm
> aware of is that Windows' mutexes cannot be statically initialized.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is quite possible, you and
he appear to be in disagreement on this point. If so, could the two of
you discuss this issue and resolve that disagreement?
-- 
James Kuyper

Thread

Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 -0700
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 16:12 -0700
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 22:41 -0400
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-08 12:47 -0700
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:11 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-08 16:56 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-09 23:55 +0200
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 18:40 -0700
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 01:16 +0200
    some sane words, for sure "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 18:33 -0700
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:34 -0700
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-09 06:57 -0400
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-09 13:59 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-09 14:45 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-10 15:47 -0700
              Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-11 13:38 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 16:12 +0300

csiph-web