Groups > comp.programming.threads > #416

Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows

Message-ID	<j2ope8-04h.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> (permalink)
From	William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com>
Subject	Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer
References	(12 earlier) <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>
Date	2011-07-10 16:09 -0700

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In comp.unix.programmer lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote:
> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandclement.com> wrote:
> > 
> > POSIX threads can be implemented quite comprehensively on Windows:
> > 
> >         http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/conformance.html

> Then why is there a long list of unimplemented functions?  Certainly
> there are *parts* of pthreads that can be implemented on Windows, but
> that's not the same thing as implementing the whole thing.

The list isn't that long. What distinguishes those interfaces is that they
can't be implemented on top of, e.g., the stdio implementation. The original
question, as I understood it, was whether the general architecture of
Windows was a reasonable fit for a POSIX threads implementation. Most of the
library can be implemented without unwarranted chumminess with the
underlying implementation, and the remaining pieces--with signals being the
biggest question mark--would appear to require only minimal cooperation by
the vendor.

Not that I believe C1x should adopt pthreads, mind you. Also, the proposal
was qualified--it suggested adopting a _subset_ of pthreads.

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