Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-25 17:18:55

Yuval Ronen wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>
>>> So to rephrase what I wanted to say in the most concise manner - the
>>> cost I was talking about is that the interoperability requirement
>>> makes N2184 impossible. As simple as that.
>>
>> I've no idea what you mean, sorry. What part of N2184 is impossible
>> and why?
>
> It depends on what kind of interoperability we're talking about. If we
> want to manipulate in C++ mutexes created in C or vice versa, then the
> example from the previous post explains it.

There are no mutexes in N2184.

> If we want to manipulate in C++ threads created in C or vice versa, then
> we have pthread_t exposition problems which are the basically same
> problems as described for mutexes,

N2184 does expose a pthread_t under POSIX, see 'native_thread_handle'.

> and in addition, we also have the join/cancel problems
> which were described elaborately by Howard.

An interoperability requirement for pthread_cancel doesn't make N2184 
impossible, just infinitely more useful.