Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news-rocq.inria.fr!not-for-mail From: Jens Gustedt Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:14:53 +0200 Organization: INRIA - CR Paris-Rocquencourt Lines: 14 Message-ID: <4E16D89D.20302@loria.fr> References: <97m59uF1nsU1@mid.individual.net> <97mluqFbcvU6@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: damogran.loria.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news-rocq.inria.fr 1310120093 2449 152.81.12.180 (8 Jul 2011 10:14:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@inria.fr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: <97mluqFbcvU6@mid.individual.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.std.c:648 comp.lang.c:7950 Am 07.07.2011 23:14, schrieb Ian Collins: > From a pthreads user's perspective the proposed API is close enough to > pthreads with default options it be usable. I find two important features missing though, PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER and PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER. Not having them will make the initialization of simple critical sections quite clumbsy. Or is it tacidly implied in the standard that the default initialization of static mutexes and conditions will to the right thing? Jens