From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 13:31:46
Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> OK. But that doesn't really address my initial point: implementing
>> call_once> in terms of the POSIX pthread_once is a bit pointless if you
>> need to implement> pthread_once separately anyway. If you don't have
>> pthread_once, I would write> call_once (or, equivalently pthread_once2_np),
>> and implement pthread_once in> terms of that.
> Pthread is a C interface that has been implemented on many platforms already
> and I don't see why you think anyone would implement it over std::thread. It
> just won't happen.
****If you don't have Pthreads available*** it might make more sense to
implement it in terms of the (more feature-rich) C++ API than vice-versa, if
you need to write both.
> On the other hand, if a particular platform implements pthread (virtually
> all do, and we have Windows port of pthread which is a proof of concept at
> least), implementing the C++ portion of N2178 is a breeze.
> Pthread is there, standardized, proven in practice, so why not make use of
> it? In addition, there is a lot of legacy pthread code which N2178 makes
> compatible with future C++ <thread> based code. I consider both to be Good
If Pthreads is not available, then you can't make use of it.
Having an implementation of <thread> based on <pthread.h> is a Good
Thing. Being able to implement <thread> without <pthread.h> is also a Good
Thing. If you don't have <pthread.h>, being able to implement <pthread.h> in
terms of <thread> might also be a Good Thing --- if you want it, you have to
write it somehow.
-- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk