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

Groups > comp.std.c > #736

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

From Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>
Newsgroups comp.std.c, comp.lang.c
Subject Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe
Date 2011-07-22 21:36 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <4E29D154.ED3B37F9@web.de> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <ivfrj7$sma$1@dont-email.me> <4E1BE0BB.6010100@loria.fr> <ivqhl6$h50$1@dont-email.me> <4E21471A.8090703@loria.fr> <j0cfmc$e8b$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:
> 
> Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Am 07/16/2011 01:14 AM, schrieb Marcin Grzegorczyk:
> >> Jens Gustedt wrote:
> >>> I don't think that just one proprietary implementation will contribute
> >>> to a wide spread acceptance. You'd need at least one major compiler
> >>> implementor adopt it on each side, windows and unix. On the unix side
> >>> this'd better be gcc or clang, so something with an open license of
> >>> some sort.
> >>
> >> Glibc, rather than GCC.  If the final standard includes the<threads.h>
> >> as the current draft describes it, I expect it to be implemented pretty
> >> soon in glibc (after all, it's just a thin wrapper over pthreads).
> >
> > So you distiguish the threads support from the atomic support?
> 
> The WG14 certainly has agreed they are different things; that's why
> there is __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ in the first place (earlier drafts had just
> __STDC_NO_THREADS__).
> 
> For the rationale, see the WG14 documents N1553 (comment CA 4) and N1558

N1555:

"There is a current macro that says if 
you have stdc_no_threads, if that is 
defined, then you don’t need to provide 
the stdcatomic.h header. These are 
different things. Specifically, threads 
belong to the OS and atomics belongs 
to the hardware. In embedded system, 
you want hardware support and not 
have OS come along for the ride. "

> (pp.14-15).  In summary, atomics can be useful even without threads

"Threads and atomics are different 
things. Specifically, threads belong
to the OS and atomics belong to the
hardware. The OS should provide common
locking implementations so that 
different compilers don't do 
incompatible things. In embedded 
system, you want hardware support and
not have OS come along for the ride.
We should separate __STDC_NO_THREADS
from stdatomic.h. We suggest 
__STDCATOMIC__ be defined if the
system provides atomics and the
atomic header.

We would have atomics in all cases,
with or without threads."

<chuckles>

The quoted N1555 et al text above is 
utter nonsense.

Without threads, we already have 
sig_atomic_t.

regards,
alexander.

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:33 +0200
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Juha Niskanen <juniskan@paju.oulu.fi.nospam> - 2011-07-07 12:46 +0000
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:26 +0200
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:12 +0000
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:11 +0200
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-08 09:23 -0400
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:20 +0000
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 07:36 -0700
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:09 +0200
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-07 18:00 +0200
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 18:20 +0200
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2011-07-07 12:31 -0400
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-07 09:40 -0700
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2011-07-07 14:42 -0400
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 12:03 -0700
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-07 19:27 +0000
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 09:14 +1200
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Wojtek Lerch <wojtek_l@yahoo.ca> - 2011-07-07 23:58 -0400
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 16:24 +1200
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-08 12:14 +0200
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-10 00:02 +0200
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-10 14:47 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 21:05 +0200
              Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-11 22:50 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-11 23:56 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-12 07:50 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-16 01:14 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-16 10:08 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-07-18 11:11 +0900
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-18 21:50 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-19 08:36 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-21 11:56 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-22 20:31 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-22 21:36 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-23 10:50 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-23 20:29 +0200
                Re: The threading specs in the standard... Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-08-03 15:50 +0200
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-07 23:07 +0200
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 23:32 +0200
      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
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:32 -0500
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-08 10:09 -0400
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:31 -0400
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-07 14:32 -0700
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 00:38 -0400
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 17:10 +1200
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 07:46 -0400
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 23:52 +1200
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 08:23 -0400
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 14:54 +0200
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 08:26 +1200
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-08 14:47 +0000
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Juha Niskanen <juniskan@paju.oulu.fi.nospam> - 2011-07-08 07:52 +0000
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-09 14:23 +0200
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-10 00:59 +0200
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-09 19:05 -0700

csiph-web