[cpp-threads] Draft Plan for Threads in C++

[Lawrence.Crowl at Sun.com]

"Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com> writes:
 >I suggested earlier in our discussion that we separate out the
 >different issues, and not try to keep them in lock-step.  Keeping
 >the discussion on a single list is probably good though, so we
 >all keep up on other relevant pieces.

Just so long as we remember that the issues must all come together
into the standard.  I wish to identify inconsistencies early.

 >Should it provide specific "atomic" classes like the Java one?
 >Should it be a template on arbitrary types, which can just say "not
 >implemented" if you ask for atomic 276 byte structs with overloaded
 >assignment?  Do we agree that the operations should be (op,
 >ordering_constraint) pairs?  Is the ordering_constraint a template
 >parameter?  What about optional hardware-dependent functionality?

All good questions.  My current thinking is to keep it simple, e.g. a
few lock objects, an atomic integer with atomic += operations, a
compare-and-swap operation.

 >The piece for which in my mind it might be tricky to get
 >agreement on time is the threads API.

Yes.

  Lawrence Crowl             650-786-6146   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
                   Lawrence.Crowl at Sun.com   16 Network Circle, UMPK16-303
           http://www.Crowl.org/Lawrence/   Menlo Park, California, 94025