Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:27:42 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <20111218132742.GA52983@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216220914.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111216221959.GB1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:31:26AM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19:59PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: > > * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, 20111216 23:09: > > > If application that does not use the new interface supposed to be > > > able to implement function with new names, then the not-underscored > > > symbols must be weak. > > For example when an application wants to implement its own functions > > that are named thrd_*(), for example? > Yes. The realistic example is the code written to C99/SUSv4 conformance > that happens to define thrd_<something>. > It might be that easiest solution is to put the functions into > separate library, besides defining them weak. Another idea is to implement the functions as static inline (with the possible exception of thrd_create() and perhaps some more). This pollutes the namespace of C1x programs with pthread_* though. > > > Do you have reference to the draft ? > > Yes, sure: > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf > BTW, it looks not very useful to add a bunch of threading functions > without at least trying to specify the memory model. I see a discussion of the memory model in 5.1.2.4 Multi-threaded executions and data races. -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111218132742.GA52983>