Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:04:58 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1112200801280.28291@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl>, <4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>, <Pine.GSO.4.64.1112191730110.25434@sea.ntplx.net> <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Niall Douglas wrote: > 4. Because POSIX does evolve over time - indeed, its next release is > same year as C1X (i.e. next year). People sit on both ISO committees > and are on the Austin Working Group. There is significant > cross-pollination. The changes in C1X are highly likely to become > normalised in the next iteration of POSIX. So think of this way, the > departures from POSIX in C1X were mostly intended as departures by > POSIX from POSIX next iteration anyway. Think what you want, but monitoring the austin mailing list, it seemed to catch everyone by surprise that C1X was coming up with a threading interface that diverged from POSIX. At least a couple of years ago that was the case, but perhaps that prompted the cross-pollination. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1112200801280.28291>