Here we go again, with more proliferation of
similar-but-not-identical standards... I skimmed through the
document at the cited URL. It is so close to POSIX threads that I
wondered what is the justification for introducing yet another set
of names. It seems that the semantics are more loosely specified
than POSIX threads, so if their objective is to be able to support
a single API as a layer over other thread implementations then
this might be of some value. However, I anticipate that some
users will not be satisfied with such a feature-poor API, and will
start demanding more, inevitably recapitulating the history of
POSIX threads. For example, I guess it is inevitable that we will
soon see a "real time" version of this and the proposed C++
interfaces. --Ted
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 09:47:21AM -0700, Nick Stoughton wrote:
> The ISO C Committee is intending to add a standardized thread API to its
> next revision. The Austin Group had at one point suggested to them that
> if they did so, pthreads would be the obvious one. However, the current
> proposal is based on the Dinkumware thread library, which is a very thin
> layer over pthreads.
>
> I have an action item to ask the Austin Group for feedback (review and
> comment) on this proposal, which can be found at
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1287.htm
>
> If anyone has any difficulty in accessing this paper, please email me
> and I send it it you independently.
>
> The next C meeting is September 8-12 in Santa Clara.
> --
> Nick Stoughton Cell: 510 388 1413
> USENIX Standards Liaison Fax: 510 548 5738
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
|