Re: glibc -- ISO C11 threads Proposal

[Kevin Cox <kevincox at kevincox dot ca>]

On 25/03/14 17:27, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:01:39PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 14:16 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>> We could also try to make some of the C11 types smaller (or at least not
>> make them bigger) to reduce space overhead.  (For example, for
>> fine-granular locking.)
> 
> I'm generally against making them bigger; the C11 synchronization
> objects are MUCH weaker than the POSIX ones in terms of their
> specifications/interface contracts, and there's no use for the space
> we already have. Making them larger just makes it more expensive to
> have synchronization objects as part of other objects, which forces
> developers to choose between bloat and coarse-grained locking.
> 
> So IMO the question to ask is whether to keep the sizes the same, or
> make them smaller. Making them smaller would require new mtx/cond
> implementations for C11 but might have some other benefits too,
> including performance.
> 

I think for this project it is best to leave them as the pthread ones.
Since I will be removing the translation functions we will be free to
"upgrade" them in the future if desired.

On that note, if it is all right with those in charge of GSOC I would
also like to request that my proposal be made editable on the melange
site so I am able update it to reflect the discussions in this thread.

Thanks,
Kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature