| To: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XSH/XRAT conflict over cancellation points |
| From: | Dave Butenhof <yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 May 2004 07:55:11 -0400 |
| Cc: | Alexander Terekhov <yyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Schwarz Konrad <yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Hewlett-Packard |
| References: | <OFC8340F76.9D7F334F-ONC1256E9B.003A8BB1-C1256E9B.003C70D9@de.ibm.com> |
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander, you make it progressively more difficult to compose civil answers to your foolish tirades. One of these days I'll just give up on you entirely.Should that be filed as a defect?The real defect here is that POSIX still doesn't defer to ISO/IEC 14882. Thread cleanup handlers shall be defined semantically equivalent to dismissible C++ "scope guards" of the local scopes formed by pthread_cleanup_push/pop() and thread exit/cancel shall be defined semantically equivalent to unspecified C++ exception (POSIX.C++ profile shall specify them, of course). No brain-damaged volatiles needed. You are welcome to undertake the effort of creating and driving a POSIX workgroup to develop a C++ binding to POSIX. Really. But you should know by now that POSIX 1003.1 is not that binding. It does not reference C++ and cannot, and your comment is completely irrelevant and meaningless. Even if there is at some time in the future a C++ binding, 1003.1 still will not reference ISO/IEC 14882. So just drop it. We are chartered and limited here with defining the behavior of the POSIX interfaces as defined for the ISO/IEC C language. That's why we don't have exceptions. When this silly limitation of the C language is lifted (ha), we can fix up the definition of POSIX cancellation. Finally, "volatile" is NOT in any way brain damaged. The volatile keyword has a clear definition, and there are many cases in which it's both necessary and sufficient. It is simply neither necessary nor sufficient for sharing a variable between concurrent execution streams. That some persist in attempting to use it that way is not the fault of 'volatile' nor of the committee that defined it, but of the individuals who have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted the standards. -- /--------------------[ yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx ]--------------------\ | Hewlett-Packard Company Tru64 UNIX & VMS Thread Architect | | My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/ | \----[ http://homepage.mac.com/dbutenhof/Threads/Threads.html ]---/ |
| Previous by Date: | Re: XSH/XRAT conflict over cancellation points, Dave Butenhof |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XSH/XRAT conflict over cancellation points, Alexander Terekhov |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: XSH/XRAT conflict over cancellation points, Alexander Terekhov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XSH/XRAT conflict over cancellation points, Alexander Terekhov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |