This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc -- ISO C11 threads Proposal
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Kevin Cox <kevincox at kevincox dot ca>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:16:39 -0400
- Subject: Re: glibc -- ISO C11 threads Proposal
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1395771092 dot 19076 dot 1236 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <5331C7EA dot 6050407 at redhat dot com> <1395777699 dot 19076 dot 1469 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20140325212732 dot GC26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <53337E8B dot 50508 at kevincox dot ca> <20140327015642 dot GF26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <1395937708 dot 19076 dot 2997 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20140327170447 dot GJ26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <53350719 dot 6090401 at redhat dot com> <1396037936 dot 19076 dot 4039 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20140328202412 dot GR26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On 03/28/2014 04:24 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:18:56PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>> A minimal C11 synchronization object has no room for error, it has
>>> to be right the first time. If my experience has taught me anything
>>> is that eventually everything is wrong. Starting with C11 objects
>>> that are the size of pthread ones is as good a starting place as
>> What do you think is the likelihood of us actually down-sizing the mutex
>> types eventually? Do you really think this will happen?
> I think adding a new symbol version simply for down-sizing would be a
> major mistake. Symbol versions only solve the problem of the ABI with
> libc; they don't solve the API breakage that changes into ABI breakage
> between third-party libraries using types from libc.
Right, that's why I said "Never, once we make a real release."