[cpp-threads] pthreads (was: RE: C++ Connections proposal)

[Boehm, Hans]

That's what I meant.  I hadn't seen that discussion.  

(I think we were slightly misquoted here.  I don't think Posix
is any more broken than other comparable specifications of
the time.  And much of that was because they were given an
impossible task.  And I would explicitly NOT like to see us design
an API that is at the same level as, and hence competes with Posix.
That view was also expressed by others at the Lillehammer C++
meeting.)

The major other issue that needs to be addressed carefully are
speculative stores introduced by a compiler, which may introduce
races.  Those, along with memory isolation, really need to be
addressed in the language spec.

As far as I can tell, that also accounts for most of the cost in
fixing this.  Based on a small survey, most current optimizing
compilers do introduce speculative stores in some cases. 

Hans


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:47 PM
> To: Boehm, Hans
> Cc: cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk; Peter Dimov
> Subject: Re: [cpp-threads] pthreads (was: RE: C++ Connections 
> proposal)
> 
> 
> On 4/26/05, Boehm, Hans <hans.boehm at hp.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > There are some other issues that your proposal below 
> doesn't address.
> 
> If you have something to add and/or change the XBD 4.10 patch (apart 
> from memory isolation and atomic<>s),  I'm eager to learn it.
> 
> > For details, see my upcoming PLDI paper, which, as of five minutes 
> > ago, is cited from the page at
> > 
> > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/c++mm/
> 
> I suppose you mean ``Threads Cannot Be Implemented As a 
> Library'', HP Labs Technical Report HPL-2004-209, to appear, 
> PLDI 2005. 
> 
> Well, that's old news, so to speak. 
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ag/msg07865.html
> 
> Don't miss followups to that message... ;-) ;-)
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
>