Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #935
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer |
| References | (9 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> |
| Organization | |
| Organization | UseNetServer - www.usenetserver.com |
| Message-ID | <dnFSp.16196$467.7869@news.usenetserver.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes: >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. A quick examination of the list of functions concludes that they fit into one of the following categories: - Not applicable to windows (pthread_atfork, getpwnam_r, et. al.) - An optional POSIX feature (robust mutexes) - stdio & C Library extensions - signals It looks like cancellation points are the most difficult feature of pthreads to implement on windows - this reference notes that the application must explictly code the cancellation points into the application using non-standard API's. scott
Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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