Re: C++ and posix threads

[David Abrahams <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
> [...]
>> Fortunately, the question may be moot: is there really much we *can*
>> do with a C++ binding in order to "accomodate" cancellation-safe C
>> code? ...
>
> Well,
>
> http://google.com/groups?threadm=3ecb86f7%40usenet01.boi.hp.com
> (Subject: Re: __attribute__((cleanup(function)) versus try/finally)
>
> <quote>
>
>>> > "William E. Kempf" wrote:
>>> The motivations are backwards here, though.  If the C++ language 
>>> adopts a threading library, POSIX systems will have a lot of 
>>> motivation for defining a POSIX C++ binding, or at the very least, 
>>> making a particular implementation's POSIX binding compatible with 
>> the C++ threading.
>
> Right now, the C++ language has, by default and convention, a POSIX 
> binding; 1003.1-2001. The C and C++ languages are sufficiently 
> interoperable that this presents only a few restrictions on the use 
> by C++ code, around exceptions and member functions. OK, so the 
...
blah, blah, blah.

Is some part of the long quote which follows relevant to accomodating
cancellation-safe 'C' code, or shall I resort to `S-l a p t' as is my
wont?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com