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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk