Boost logo

Boost :

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-24 18:44:18

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

You understand correctly. This is the question I ask, and the answer I
give is "no".

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

The fact that pthreads exist is completely irrelevant. We setup a C++
standard, and it should be as good as it gets. The POSIX model is good,
so we take it. The POSIX syntax is not so good (for C++, obviously) so
we don't take it.

> So I think you're asking the wrong question.

I disagree. I think the question I'm asking is spot on, really. ;-)

> 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?

Sorry, but I think not.

> 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?

I haven't checked it in depth, but if you say no, then I'll take your
word for it.

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

Disagreement again. Question 1 is not to be overlooked at all. The C++
moto is "don't pay for what you don't need". I'll add to that "don't
standardize what you don't need". Less is more, and stuff like that.

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