|
From: K. F. <kfr...@gm...> - 2012-05-09 16:00:48
|
Hi Jonathan! (Again, cross-posted to mingw.) On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwa...@gm...> wrote: > On 7 May 2012 18:35, K. Frank wrote: >> Hello Ruben and Gabriel! > > N.B. I'm not on the mingw lists, so please keep me CC'd if you want > responses or any help from me in enhancing libstdc++ to work better on > Windows. (Done.) >> And my P.S.: As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have been using Ruben's >> <thread>-enabled build, and it passes all of my tests. So the approach of >> sticking with the winpthreads implementation of <thread> and directing >> any available manpower to fixing and/or improving it rather than to building >> a separate implementation seems on the surface sensible. > > The C++11 thread library exposes native OS handle via the > "native_handle()" member functions. A <thread> implementation based > on Windows thread primitives would allow mixing std::thread with > WaitForMultipleObjects, which may be preferable to people who want to > use mingw's std::thread and combine it with their own code. Okay, that's fair. If you want to mix <thread> with native windows threads, then a "native" implementation for <thread> makes sense. Conversely, if you want to mix <thread> with pthreads, then a pthreads implementation for <thread> makes sense. Me, I just want to use <thread>, so either way, I don't really care. (But that's just me.) > ... > I guess that's a decision for the mingw maintainers. Yes, absolutely. As far as I can tell, mingw and mingw-w64 are the main windows-based "consumers" of gcc. So it's really up to them as to what support they would like to see incorporated upstream. So, mingw and mingw-w64 guys, please chime in! > If however, users want --enable-threads=win32, then my first > suggestion seems like a reasonable way to give them a better > experience than they have today. Thanks very much for your thoughts and feedback. K. Frank |