"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz@chello.at> writes:
Anthony Williams wrote:
That was when the goal was a simple reimplementation under the BSL. Now Bill's code is under the BSL, the goalposts have moved to focusing on a potential interface for the new standard. Are you in agreement that this is a worthwhile goal?
Well, yes in principle, but what about the ongoing platform split? It is not finished yet.
We likely need a platform split whatever interface we go with, since pthreads is quite different at the API level to Windows, even if the same facilities are on offer.
There is also the option of implementing pthread_rwlock_* on Windows, keeping the higher layer platform-independent.
Which still requires a windows-specific layer, and thus a platform split.
This obviously requires a higher layer that agrees with the pthread_rwlock_* interface.
Which means no upgradeable locks, if nothing else. The platform split issue is wider than just rwlocks, though. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk