Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads - name of the "thread" type

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:
>
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/boost/boost/libs/thread/doc/Attic/thread_formal_definition.html?rev=1.1.2.
1&content-type=text/html&hideattic=0
>
> 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
> experts.
>
> 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.
>
> --Beman
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>