public inbox for libc-ports@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	libc-ports <libc-ports@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unify pthread_once (bug 15215)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:22:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130510132206.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1368174657.7774.2130.camel@triegel.csb>

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:30:57AM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> 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?

My guess is that they would adopt the C11 model.

Rich

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-10 13:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-08 14:44 Torvald Riegel
2013-05-08 17:51 ` Rich Felker
2013-05-08 20:47   ` Torvald Riegel
2013-05-08 21:25     ` Rich Felker
2013-05-09  8:39       ` Torvald Riegel
2013-05-09 14:02         ` Rich Felker
2013-05-09 15:14           ` Torvald Riegel
2013-05-09 15:56             ` Rich Felker
2013-05-10  8:31               ` Torvald Riegel
2013-05-10 13:22                 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2013-05-23  4:15 ` Carlos O'Donell
2013-08-26 12:50   ` Ondřej Bílka
2013-08-26 16:45     ` Rich Felker
2013-08-26 18:41       ` Ondřej Bílka
2013-08-27  2:29         ` Rich Felker
2013-10-06  0:20   ` Torvald Riegel
2013-10-06 21:41     ` Torvald Riegel
2013-10-07 16:04     ` Joseph S. Myers
2013-10-07 21:53       ` Torvald Riegel
2014-03-31 11:44         ` Will Newton
2014-03-31 20:09           ` Torvald Riegel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130510132206.GP20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
    --to=dalias@aerifal.cx \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=libc-ports@sourceware.org \
    --cc=triegel@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).