[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: read-write locks
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: read-write locks |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:39:15 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 |
On 01/06/2017 04:22 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> First, are you familiar with what C++ has put out recently (eg, parallel
> algorithms in the C++17 draft?). Are you familiar with the memory model
> introduced in C11 and C++11?
I know a bit about the 2011 models, as well as the JMM. I do not know
the C++17 draft. I am by no means an expert, just a sometimes-interested
(and often-appalled) observer.
> what would you have done differently? (Besides
> trying to get something like the memory model specified much earlier?)
Isn't hindsight wonderful? :-)
> I'd agree regarding the concurrency research, but I'd see that as reason
> to not try to deviate from the semantics and the overall design of the
> synchronization primitives that POSIX / C provide to you -- in
> particular if that becomes nontrivial. Is that what you wanted to say?
>
I was trying to be even more conservative than that. Gnulib should not
use C++17, and should be chary even of using C11 and C++11 features.
(Maybe the latter in 10 years, as Bruno suggested.)
- Re: bugs in gnulib thread modules, (continued)
Re: C11 atomics, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/05
Re: read-write locks, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/05
Re: read-write locks, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/05
Re: read-write locks, Torvald Riegel, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, Torvald Riegel, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, throttling, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, throttling, Torvald Riegel, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, Kamil Dudka, 2017/01/05
Re: read-write locks, Torvald Riegel, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, Bruno Haible, 2017/01/06
Re: read-write locks, Torvald Riegel, 2017/01/06