Subj : Re: Non-strictly-conforming and unspecified versus undefined behavior
To   : comp.programming.threads,comp.std.c
From : Gianni Mariani
Date : Mon Feb 21 2005 08:12 pm

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>    Honestly, I cannot tell what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> lvalues referring to objects with thread storage duration.
> 
> 
>>    Also, the implication that a person likes the implementation
>>possibilities he warns about is bogus. If I said you shouldn't assume 'char'
>>is signed by default, would you argue that I somehow prefer unsigned
>>characters over signed ones?
> 
> 
> Sorry, I meant the author of "I liked the SGI Irix way where the 
> same address was mapped to different pysical memory for each thread." 
> statement, not you.

That was me - Gianni Mariani !

What's your gripe with this ? - without citing POSIX religion that is.

If you require threads to be able to share thread specific objects, 
they're, by defintion, no longer thread specific !  Kind of an oxymoron.

Your intended behaviour is easily implemented by use of pointers to 
dynamically created objects.

.