[cpp-threads] Editorial comments on the straw man

[Nick Maclaren]

Ben Hutchings <ben at decadentplace.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > I don't suppose that anyone has a reliable list of the function
> > calls in C++ that POSIX says are not thread-safe?
> 
> In the absence of any pthreads binding for C++, no.  It is *probably*
> safe to assume that what's thread-safe in the C libary is still
> thread-safe in C++.  ...

No, no, that's neither necessary nor useful.

What is needed is a list of the C functions mentioned in the C++
standard (e.g. localeconv in <clocale>) that are ALSO in POSIX,
broken down by thread-safety.  This is SOLELY that we know where
to start looking for problems.

The point is that this is a political issue.  If the memory model
specifies that certain C functions are thread-unsafe but POSIX
says that they are thread-safe, there will be trouble.  I don't
think that C++ supports any C macros, so fputc and friends aren't
a separate issue.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1 at cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679