From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3679 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2002 22:57:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3537 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 22:56:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO real.ise.canberra.edu.au) (137.92.140.34) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 22:56:56 -0000 Received: from ise.canberra.edu.au (IDENT:rpj@special.ise.canberra.edu.au [137.92.140.39]) by real.ise.canberra.edu.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA14902; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:56:48 +1100 Message-ID: <3C83FBAD.69CAE62@ise.canberra.edu.au> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:57:00 -0000 From: Ross Johnson Reply-To: rpj@ise.canberra.edu.au Organization: University of Canberra, DMT, xISE X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Crescioli, Phil" CC: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: snapshot-2002-03-02 available References: <33F012255162604984A3F4BDA95C6EC43C3849@mstaex1b.DSRUSI.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 Hi, "Crescioli, Phil" wrote: > > Ross, > Your win32pthreads lib saved me so much time porting my threaded code > from unix to windows! http://sources.redhat.com/pthreads-win32/contributors.html > Unfortunately some of my code works by sending data via > message queues > between threads of different processes. Any idea if your going to > support > _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED in a near future release? > Thanks, > Phil Crescioli As you know, there has been an attempt in the past to include message queues. Aurelio Medina wrote an implementation but unfortunately it relied on process shared mutexes etc, which aren't supported by pthreads-win32. Although, it did work for single process applications. See thread starting at http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2001/msg00085.html Process shared objects would have to be the next major ToDo for pthreads-win32 because there isn't a lot more that can be added to the library without them. A few people have been looking for message queues and possibly many others who have considered pthreads-win32 and then silently moved on. I'm not sure if this is possible to do while supporting the full POSIX semantics, but perhaps a restricted version might be possible making use of Win32 named objects, putting just the names into shared memory. The starting point would have to be process shared semaphores, then the other devices would start to fall into place. I'll have to check over past discussion of this issue, but I seem to recall some of the reasons it hasn't been done yet are: - technical feasibility. Anything is possible, but will it maximise the return on the investment :^); - low priority. People who are willing to contribute time to the library don't need the feature themselves; - it may start to pull in parts of the POSIX standard that are beyond the intended scope of the library, i.e. shared memory routines, even message queues. Have you looked at other POSIX compatibility projects such as Cygwin or UWIN? Regards. Ross > > >>>The following POSIX 1003.1 2001 options are not defined: > >>>_POSIX_THREAD_ATTR_STACKADDR > >>>_POSIX_THREAD_PRIO_INHERIT > >>>_POSIX_THREAD_PRIO_PROTECT > >>>_POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ross Johnson [SMTP:rpj@ise.canberra.edu.au] > > Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 1:24 AM > > To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com > > Subject: NEW: snapshot-2002-03-02 available > > > > There are bugs fixes, new routines, new tests, and a lot > > of reorganisation. Please see the ANNOUNCE, NEWS, and BUGS > > files in the package or at: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/pthreads-win32/announcement.html > > > > There is also an updated Copyright notice on the source > > code, but NO CHANGE to the licensing, which is the GNU LGPL. > > > > The Copyright notice replaces the original inadequate notice > > and reflects the heritage of the project. > > > > The Copyright notice is slightly different to the one that I > > proposed on this list a few months back. This change was at > > my own instigation. I don't expect anyone to have any > > objection to it since there was no objection to the previous > > one, but please let me know if you do. > > > > I've also made acknowledgements more prominent in the > > CONTRIBUTORS file and ChangeLog to go with the change in the > > copyright notice. Let me know if I've missed you out, or > > missed noting any significant contributions. > > > > Enjoy! > > Ross