Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:47:25 -0000 From: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> To: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <4EF09FFD.7768.B66F73ED@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> In-Reply-To: <62147.1324388400@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <Your message of "Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:50:48 GMT." <4EF084A8.32369.B604AD16@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>>, <62147.1324388400@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 Dec 2011 at 13:40, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >If I remember correctly UTC was seen as the safest of all options > >available. Annoying to program I agree, but definitely safer than > >alternatives. > > No, actually UTC is much unsafer than the alternative, and in general > much less useful and desirable for the same reasons it is unsafe. > > UTC as implemented on a computer is not a continuous timescale, > it is not even an monotonic timescale if you are unlucky. Sure, it even varies slightly between CPU core on some platforms. > And maybe, in trying to express that using a real-world example, > the standards comittee would realize that UTC was a mistake, and > changed the timeout argument to a relative time interval instead, > like for instance the poll(2) system-call. There was some very good argument against relative periods. I honestly can't remember what that was. It was a long time ago. > >> Where did the ability to control a threads stacksize or other > >> attributes go in thrd_create() ? > > > >I would assume that they were considered non portable due to vendor > >objection. In particular, I remember an argument that thread > >stacksize settings are dangerous and must be omitted. > > I would assume that the people who found it dangerous were morons > without any actual real-life experience programming threads on > computers with finite resources ? I think you are out of order in this public comment and you should apologise to those who have served on WG14. If you disagree with the standard, please feel free to submit an erratum to http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/ Or even better, participate and donate your own time to the committee. They are very inclusive and more than happy to give time to all viewpoints. You don't even need to officially join - you can attend or participate as an observer. Otherwise quite frankly I don't care what your background, your rep or your experience is. Feel free to voice an opinion after you have attended a few ISO committee meetings and seen the work done there. Otherwise you don't know what you're talking about. Niall -- Technology & Consulting Services - ned Productions Limited. http://www.nedproductions.biz/. VAT reg: IE 9708311Q. Company no: 472909.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EF09FFD.7768.B66F73ED>