This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Other ISO C TR / TS / standard optional APIs
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:21:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: Other ISO C TR / TS / standard optional APIs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1511112059460 dot 1037 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <1447373763 dot 30181 dot 0 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <56453776 dot 1010908 at linaro dot org>
On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 23:05 -0200, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> On 12-11-2015 22:16, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 21:43 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >> * C11 threads. I believe we have consensus that these are appropriate
> >> (for libpthread). The patches submitted in August need substantive review
> >> from a threads expert, as well as revisions for my review comments last
> >> month.
> >
> > I agree :)
> >
> > There might a Transactional Memory TS coming in the future, but that
> > support is already in GCC/libitm (which makes sense given
> >
> >
... that it is a feature that relies on compiler support). The other TS
that may come to life is the CPLEX TS, which would likely be implemented
in GCC too.
> I think you sent your email too early ;). I also agree and given the
> time frame I think it is feasible to try push C11 threads to 2.23.
> I will check out the patches to see what bits are missing.
I also plan to review those patches closely. There are a few cases
where we might want to think about not just using the POSIX
implementation. I'm still wondering whether we should try to make the
mutex space overhead smaller.