From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 20 13:05:00 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89588106564A; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:05:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411A28FC13; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id pBKD4wbN046764; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:04:58 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:04:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:04:58 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Niall Douglas In-Reply-To: <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> Message-ID: References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl>, <4EEF9235.31023.B2519C9A@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>, <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:05:00 -0000 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