From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 12:45:46
Johan Nilsson wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>> For a non-pthreads platform, it might make sense to implement
>>> pthreads in terms of the C++ interface, which is implementes in
>>> terms of the native API, rather than implement the C++ interface in
>>> terms of pthreads, which is then implemented in terms of the native
>> Yes, this is possible, and there are no technical reasons to avoid
>> this implementation approach. There are, how should I put that,
>> ideological reasons to not target non-pthread platforms directly,
> Wow, this caught my eye when lurking around. Are we promoting
> Windows-bashing for its own sake here ;-)
No, you misunderstood.
We are promoting ISO/IEC 9945 as a standard threading abstraction. We are
(hypothetically) providing an implementation for Windows as a service to the
users/developers and as a proof of viability. We are encouraging Microsoft
to supply its own implementation because they can do it better than us with
access to the kernel.
> I'd be surprised if there were no performance considerations at all.
One would expect a C++ programmer to be more careful with that argument,
given his constant exposure to C programmers who really would be surprised
if using C++ doesn't make their code slower. ;-)
That aside, if there is a legitimate design-imposed source of inefficiency
in N2178, I'll be glad to know about it so that it can be fixed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk