Subj : Re: Adding thread support for C...
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Sun Jul 24 2005 12:13 pm

Mayan Moudgill wrote:
> Joe Seigh wrote:
> 
>> Mayan Moudgill wrote:
>>
>> What you won't get is support for writing your own synchronization api's,
>> Not unless you can construct them out of the synchronization functions 
>> they
>> give you.  Probablly something like the atomic stuff in JSR 166.  You
>> might want to take a look at that.
> 
> 
> So what synchronization APIs would you like to see supported?
> 
I deal with various issues depending on what I'm doing at the time.
I don't think it's worth my time trying to formalize what thread support
by C should be given it would take a lot of time and effort.  I don't
think I could counter the agendas others are pushing plus the tendency
of threading api implementors to have a low opinion of other peoples
thread programming skills.  This leads to the deliberate omission of
low level primitives and the inclusion of only the high level api's
favored by the thread api designers.  Java is a case in point.  And
JSR 166 is an interesting aspect of this.  The lock-free techniques in
JSR 166 came from outside of Java, C mostly.  When you end up making C/C++
like Java, it will be difficult to develop new algorithms in threading.
You won't be able to cheat and get away with it like you can now.

Also it's more or a less a moot point as far as I'm concerned.  I'm
working on trying to stop inventing new threading techniques as it's
not really a useful activity and it's mostly frustrating being on
the bleeding edge.


-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.