This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [GSoC Project Proposal] ISO C11 threads.h implementation in GNU C Library
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Juan Manuel Torres Palma <j dot m dot torrespalma at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:23:10 -0500
- Subject: Re: [GSoC Project Proposal] ISO C11 threads.h implementation in GNU C Library
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAD82F-pDTRUi1Nh6YiQ-Mx21m6K0NqqvfqZ6ayU9aAACeaVP+w at mail dot gmail dot com> <1393531628 dot 23480 dot 1 dot camel at SamsungRF510>
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:07:08PM +0100, Juan Manuel Torres Palma wrote:
> 3 - Design a high level solution and show it to glibc maintainers, so I
> can receive precious feedback to improve my solution and fix most issues
> detected. (This plan is the high level solution that I'm thinking about)
I'm probably getting ahead of things here, but for what it's worth,
one of the big questions that's been open so far is whether C11
synchronization objects should just reuse the pthread objects and
implementations, or have their own versions. Since C11 semantics are
much weaker, there could be potential performance benefits to having
separate implementations, and since C11 has fewer features, the
objects themselves could possibly be significantly smaller (which has
a major impact on the cost of including them in structures that exist
in many instances). However I'm not sure whether these benefits
outweigh the cost of having separate implementations. If your proposal
is accepted, I think this is a major area you should research and
present pros/cons on during the early stages.
Rich