From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14085 invoked by alias); 10 May 2013 08:31:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 14068 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2013 08:31:03 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 08:31:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4A8UxJo024717 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 May 2013 04:30:59 -0400 Received: from [10.36.5.155] (vpn1-5-155.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.155]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4A8UvBC004490; Fri, 10 May 2013 04:30:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unify pthread_once (bug 15215) From: Torvald Riegel To: Rich Felker Cc: GLIBC Devel , libc-ports In-Reply-To: <20130509155613.GM20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1368024237.7774.794.camel@triegel.csb> <20130508175132.GB20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1368046046.7774.1441.camel@triegel.csb> <20130508212502.GF20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1368088765.7774.1571.camel@triegel.csb> <20130509140245.GI20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1368112468.7774.2082.camel@triegel.csb> <20130509155613.GM20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 08:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1368174657.7774.2130.camel@triegel.csb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 11:56 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 05:14:28PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > > I agree that the absence of a proper memory model makes reasoning about > > > > some of this hard. I guess it would be best if POSIX would just endorse > > > > C11's memory model, and specify the intended semantics in relation to > > > > this model where needed. > > > > > > Agreed, and I suspect this is what they'll do. I can raise the issue, > > > but perhaps you'd be better at expressing it. Let me know if you'd > > > rather I do it. > > > > I have no idea how the POSIX folks would feel about this. After all, it > > would create quite a dependency for POSIX. With that in mind, trying to > > resolve this isn't very high on my todo list. If people would think > > that this would be beneficial for how we can deal with POSIX > > requirements, or for our users to understand the POSIX requirements > > better, I can definitely try to follow up on this. If you want to go > > ahead and start discussing with them, please do so (please CC me on the > > tracker bug). > > POSIX is aligned with ISO C, and since the current version of ISO C is > now the 2011 version, Issue 8 should be aligned to the 2011 version of > the C standard. I don't think the issue is whether it happens, but > making sure that the relevant text gets updated so that there's no > ambiguity as to whether it's compatible with the new C standard and > not placing unwanted additional implementation constraints like it may > be doing now. So, if it is aligned, would POSIX be willing to base their definitions on the C11 memory model? Or would they want to keep their sometimes rather vague requirements and just make sure that there are no obvious inconsistencies or gaps? Torvald