[Bug libc/14092] New: Support C11 threads

[Bug libc/14092] New: Support C11 threads

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14092

             Bug #: 14092
           Summary: Support C11 threads
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.15
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: libc
        AssignedTo: unassigned@sourceware.org
        ReportedBy: jsm28@gcc.gnu.org
                CC: drepper.fsp@gmail.com
    Classification: Unclassified


It might be useful for glibc to implement the C11 <threads.h> functionality.

http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-12/msg00059.html

has some comments about how this might be done without having a new shared
library.  (However, making pthreadtypes.h stay within the ISO C reserved
namespace may be harder than suggested there, because of C++ mangling issues;
see how when we gave the union that's pthread_attr_t a tag, it had to be
exactly "union pthread_attr_t" to avoid changing the mangling.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/14092] Support C11 threads

[bugdal at aerifal dot cx]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14092

Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugdal at aerifal dot cx

--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> 2012-05-10 15:44:57 UTC ---
I think it's safe (and probably preferable) NOT to use the same types for C11
threads. This will catch program errors of trying to call a C11 thread function
on a POSIX thread object or vice versa. Of course, if it's desirable for the
implementations to be shared (and I believe it is), then the corresponding
types should have the same *sizes*, and internally the code should just cast
away (or spirit it away with weak symbols and fake prototypes) the difference
in pointer types.

In any case, I'd like to hear a decision on what glibc intends to do on this
issue. I'm aiming to keep the C (but not C++) ABI in musl libc mostly
compatible with glibc, and not knowing what sizes glibc intends to use for the
C11 mutex, etc. types is preventing me from getting C11 threads implemented.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/14092] Support C11 threads

[fweimer at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14092

Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |security-

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/14092] Support C11 threads

[david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14092

David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot c
                   |                            |om

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug nptl/14092] Support C11 threads

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14092

Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|libc                        |nptl

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.