From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <362f621e-a01c-4772-ba02-4e18e9962188@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <7961a91c-a5af-40e2-bbc0-6bf69a98176d@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<gnc585975lmscgmvat9avedckgs3du6pin@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.35.35.34
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1250092594 3889 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2009 15:56:34
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:56:34 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.35.35.34;
	posting-account=GwkXCgoAAABFSG45Q--uHVZG6zn6ec-e
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.0.11)
	Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7700
Date: 2009-08-12T08:56:34-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Aug 12, 8:25=A0am, John McCabe <j...@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> My point/question really was whether it will be acceptable for a C++
> compiler to NOT support the threading library (i.e. if a vendor
> chooses not to provide a bare board run-time system with built in
> threading).

C++ defines two types of implementations: hosted and freestanding. The
later is not required to provided threads (among other things).

> It seems to me that Ada's model started off with a clean slate and was
> designed from the ground up whereas with C++ it's always been a case
> of "how can we bolt this on". That's primarily what I was getting at.

If the Ada model suits your needs, use it. Why should C++ be
identical? It serves a different community.

> As I mentioned earlier I've not read a huge amount about this yet, but
> I've seen little evidence that there are any standards proposed in C++
> to handle thread priorities, dispatching policies and so on.

Even Ada isn't perfect in this regard. For example, the Ada compilers
that run on Linux (that I have used) cannot use priorities unless you
are running as root (because they are built upon Linux threads).

REH