glibc -- ISO C11 threads Proposal
Rich Felker
dalias@aerifal.cx
Fri Mar 28 20:24:00 GMT 2014
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
> > any.
>
> 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.
Rich
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list