Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-22 20:28:05

John Max Skaller wrote:

> This is an issue which needs to be addressed by the
>Standardisation committee. But first, the abstract machine
>needs to be extended to support the notion of threads. :-)

I've written a first draft of a Formal Definition of "Thread". It attempts
the definition in terms of the C++ Standard. It doesn't contain exact
wording that would go in a future standard, but it at least identifies a
number of areas of concern.

Because it is checked in on a branch, the URL is a beauty:

Comments would be appreciated. Are there areas of the behavior of the C++
abstract machine that need to be mentioned that I've missed? I'm sure
there are; I'm a library person rather than a core language person. In
some ways the document is just a strawman to stimulate interest from core

Two points to bring up over and over again when you talk to core language
people (the compiler writers) are that:

1) The LWG is talking purely in terms of an optional thread library. A
compiler will not have to support it if they don't wish to. The standard
will not mandate whether or not a compiler must supply a threading library;
it is up to the vendor.

2) For many them what we are asking is that the standard be changed to
reflect what their compilers are already doing. Their compilers are
already supporting threading libraries; the idea is to standardize existing
behavior, not invent a whole new set of behaviors.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at