|Subject:||Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking (specifically, sequences)|
|Date:||Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:58:56 -0700|
|User-agent:||Postbox 3.0.7 (Windows/20130120)|
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:38:13 -0400, Ken Hornstein said:if "the MH way" could expand to C89 and posix threads, we'd have some options that were both performance and correct.I think we already assume C89 as a minimum. However, I'm not sure I want to jump off the threads cliff just yet :-/"Some people see a problem and say "I know, I'll use threads". Now they have two problems" - jwz, misquoted. :)
that's oldthink. even C89 is oldthink. i know that MH loves mature platforms, but, my experience watching BIND9 since Y2K or so tells me that threads are now fairly reliable on every current platform. (in Y2K threads were crap on most platforms.)
i'm not asking for C11, though if we wanted MH to attract new users rather than just serving a declining/graying population, we would embrace the hell out of C11.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|