From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-22 21:34:12
A very useful start, thanks.
From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk