[Top][All Lists]

[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.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]