Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Add support for ISO C11 threads.h

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>]

On 28/03/2017 05:08, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 10:10 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I've reviewed the DRs and your comments below.  I agree with
>> your view and just for clarity provide some additional comments
>> of my own.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> There's been a lot of talk over the last few WG14 meetings about
>> the whole threads section needing an overhaul.  I don't know if
>> anyone is actually working on it but if it were to happen (for
>> C2X) there is some risk that an implementation coded to the C11
>> spec not conforming to the cleaned up and improved C2X spec.
> 
> I'd hope that they wouldn't deviate from what C++ specifies.  I'm
> monitoring C++ changes, including whether anything would result in
> required changes for glibc.  IOW, if C doesn't deviate from C++, we
> shouldn't need additional changes just for C.
> 

Thanks for both extensive inputs and discussion.  From the comments I 
see that a current C11 thread based on POSIX could be still be feasible,
however I am not sure if we should prevent its implementation based on 
the C2X possible different spec.

In any way, I see that the still pending DR493 should not pose any
implementation issues (we can work out on the wrapper if any other
requirement is posed).

So I would like the input from the community whether implementing C11
in GLIBC is desirable and if current approach based is most correct
one.