Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 18:27:08

>> But let's turn things over: why not use pthread instead of creating
>> another
>> API? I think it is clear that using pthreads has a few advantages. What
>> is
>> the drawback?
>>
> RAII?
>
> If the response is "API on top of pthreads" then why discuss pthreads at
> all?

Here is how I understand your question: does it make sense to formalize a
lower level API behind <thread>.

If we lived in a world where pthreads did not exist, I wouldn't care much
one way or another; but we don't.

So I think you're asking the wrong question. I think it's more appropriate
to ask ourselves:

1) Given that pthreads is already a very solid formal standard, and given
that there is a lot of legacy code already written for it, does it make
sense to also formally standardize it as the abstraction layer of the C++
<thread> support?

2) Does adopting pthreads as the standard lower level abstraction of the C++
<thread> layer make it in any way harder to implement the C++ <thread>
layer, compared to an implementation that does not formalize a lower level
interface?

3) Does a formal pthread layer introduce any overhead in the higher level
C++ <thread> layer?

In particular we need to examine the answer to 2) and 3) wrt the Windows
<thread> implementation, since on Posix the answer is clear.

Emil Dotchevski