From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gsl-discuss-return-5508-listarch-gsl-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14173 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2009 20:12:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 14152 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Sep 2009 20:12:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.network-theory.co.uk (HELO mail.network-theory.co.uk) (66.199.228.187)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:12:24 +0000
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:12:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m38wgd2v00.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
From: Brian Gough <bjg@gnu.org>
To: Gerard Jungman <jungman@lanl.gov>
Cc: GSL Discuss Mailing List <gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: GSL 2.0 roadmap (one man's view)
In-Reply-To: <1253062112.23092.966.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
References: <48E25CA9.6080306@iki.fi>
	<490DE4BD.7070907@iki.fi>
	<m3y700znqd.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<497B00F6.2080400@iki.fi>
	<m38woqp3je.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<498727E5.6080407@iki.fi>
	<49AA9DB5.6030908@iki.fi>
	<49FB01D1.30000@iki.fi>
	<m3ljp7amw3.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<4A7ADFDC.9080408@iki.fi>
	<m3r5v4527i.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<1251414774.23092.80.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
	<1251414939.23092.82.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
	<m3bplmq2l9.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<1253062112.23092.966.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Message-Mac: 2eb0166e0495776570d6b129a3a086e4
Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gsl-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gsl-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gsl-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2

At Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:48:32 -0600,
Gerard Jungman wrote:
> I would like to know how non-portable this is. I mean, I understand it
> is different for every platform, but if everybody has one then it
> only becomes an issue of configuring the variability.
> 
> Roughly speaking, I would think that every thread implementation must
> have a notion of thread-local storage, so we're never required to
> provide something that doesn't exist...

I don't know enough about it to really say, but I haven't seen any
libraries following that approach -- returning an error code is the
usual way.