Threads still offtopic?

[kashdan]

I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

Thank you.

 

[Eric Sosman]

I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

I want to know why you think I deem threads off-topic. Please
answer, if you have an answer, with actual citations from posts of
mine made after C11's adoption. (Read them carefully first: There
was a discussion not so long ago in which I told someone to take his
question to c.p.t, because he was using Pthreads and *not* C11's
threads. Discussion of Pthreads -- and Windowthreads and VMSthreads
and Bastingthreads -- *is* off-topic here.)

It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

You're right: It's a conspiracy. Our numbers are legion, our
legions are overpowering, our eyes are everywhere, and you have just
been moved eleven places up on our hit list. Get your affairs in
order.

People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

"What."

I've mentioned C11's threads a few times in this group, but
have declined to discuss them in any detail because I do not feel
sufficiently knowledgable about them to offer useful information.
I also don't write much about locales, or wide-character issues, or
even about complex arithmetic. Someone who thinks that's evidence
that I "don't accept" the Standard is deficient in logic.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

In my opinion:

Discussion of threads as defined by C11 is certainly topical here;
I don't recall anyone stating otherwise. But I haven't seen much
discussion of C11 threads, probably because there are few if any
implementations (as far as I know).

Discussion of threads as defined by POSIX would be topical in
comp.unix.programmer and/or comp.programming.threads.

Discussion of the relationship between between pthreads and C11
threads (how similar they are, details of the differences between
them) would be topical here and/or in comp.std.c.

We aren't seeing much topical discussion of threads here because
the vast majority of *practical* questions about threads depend on
POSIX threads, not C11 threads.

I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there is,
nobody told me about it.

If you want to discuss C11 threads here, by all means do so. (But I
don't know how much response you'll get; I, for one, have not really
looked into them.)

 

[Jens Gustedt]

Am 13.08.2012 22:50, schrieb kashdan:

I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

personal attacts are rarely productive

there has e.g be a discussion on an underspecification of tss_t that
had been triggered by Jacob Navia (or was it on comp.std.c?) that has
resulted in an informal defect report that you can find here:

http://p99.gforge.inria.fr/defects-and-improvements/DR-tss.html

It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
on threads. Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

Most people here probably just don't have the experience with it,
since there are not so many compilers out there that implement C11.

If you are interested in trying out many of C11 *and* you have gcc,
clang or similar at hand on top of a POSIX system, you can go for P99
(see above), where I implemented wrappers that do most of it. Through
that I use the C11 thread interfaces on a daily base, and for me it
works smoothly. I would be happy to have more feedback on this
implementation.

Jens

 

[James Kuyper]

I want to know, why threads are deemed offtopic here by the likes of E
Sosman, although they are today part of standard C?

If you believe that Eric has expressed the opinion that C11 threads are
off-topic in this forum, I'd appreciate citations. I can't remember any
such incident.

If you're referring to his opposition to POSIX-specific discussions of
POSIX threads, that's entirely reasonable, since they are NOT "today
part of standard C".
Someone did recently post who had no interest in C11 threads, but only
in POSIX threads, yet insisted on discussing his interests here, rather
than in a POSIX-oriented forum. That might be what confused you on this
issue.

It is like a conspiracy of silence, everyone refuses to answer questions
on threads. ...

Has anyone asked a question about C11 threads that no one has answered?
In the unlikely event that there are any examples, it could be because
no one knows the answer to the question - the topic is still too new -
but I'd expect that any such question would still have generated a lot
of discussion here.

... Even people who often answer questions on pthreads in
comp.programming.threads, when C's threads are essentially the same as
pthreads but with the pthread_ namespace removed from identifiers.

As long as you are discussing them with the namespace removed form the
identifier, and with the corresponding differences in semantics, it's
entirely appropriate to discuss them here. There are differences, and
pretending that there are not would be stupid.

People in this group don't accept the new standard or what?

Some don't, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is the
failure of some posters to make the distinction between POSIX threads,
which are better discussed in comp.unix.programmer or
comp.programming.threads, and C11 threads, which are best discussed here.

Note: a comparison between POSIX threads and C11 threads could
reasonably be carried out either here or in either of those other two
groups, or all three, for that matter. I'd look forward to such a
discussion - I don't know enough about threading of any type to be sure
of what those differences are, and I'd like to know.

 

[Mark Bluemel]

I *really* don't think there's any "conspiracy of silence"; if there is,
nobody told me about it.

That only proves you're not in the inner circle - if you'd care to join
there is a small fee and a very embarassing initiationritual that you
must undergo.

 

[Ansel]

That only proves you're not in the inner circle - if you'd care to
join there is a small fee and a very embarassing initiationritual
that you must undergo.

You forgot the part about getting the mark of the beast applied. What is the
mark these day? A hot iron brand? A tattoo? Something else?

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

You forgot the part about getting the mark of the beast applied. What is the
mark these day? A hot iron brand? A tattoo? Something else?

RFID chip. Just like we've had implanted in our dogs....