Subj : Re: posix and lock-free algorithms
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Schwartz
Date : Sat Aug 13 2005 02:44 am


"Mayan Moudgill" <mmoudgill@sandbridgetech.com> wrote in message 
news:11fqimunehhfk87@corp.supernews.com...

>>     Umm, no, a POSIX-compliant compiler also has to satisfy the 
>> requirements imposed by POSIX.

> Can you point me to the POSIX standard for the C language?

    The "POSIX standard for the C language" is the C standard, as augmented 
and modified by POSIX.

> AFAIK, no such thing exists. Which is why this thread exists - if you 
> could define a standard [which would require defining an abstract machine] 
> for C, the semantics would be precisely nailed down [well, at least the 
> "implementation-defined" and "undefined" stuff would become clear]. But 
> since (AFAIK) there is no such beast, I'll say the following - since there 
> is no formal semantics for C defined by Posix, Posix compliance is a 
> non-sequitur.

    I think it would not be difficult at all to combine the two standards so 
that the result contained all of the C standard, the POSIX modifications to 
that standard, and the new POSIX stuff.

    The POSIX standard "simply" adds new functions and new requirements to 
C. It adds functions, and behavior requirements, just as the C standard does 
in various places.

    DS

.