On 01/06/2017 04:22 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > First, are you familiar with what C++ has put out recently (eg, parallel > algorithms in the C++17 draft?). Are you familiar with the memory model > introduced in C11 and C++11?
I know a bit about the 2011 models, as well as the JMM. I do not know the C++17 draft. I am by no means an expert, just a sometimes-interested (and often-appalled) observer. > what would you have done differently? (Besides > trying to get something like the memory model specified much earlier?) Isn't hindsight wonderful? :-) > I'd agree regarding the concurrency research, but I'd see that as reason > to not try to deviate from the semantics and the overall design of the > synchronization primitives that POSIX / C provide to you -- in > particular if that becomes nontrivial. Is that what you wanted to say? > I was trying to be even more conservative than that. Gnulib should not use C++17, and should be chary even of using C11 and C++11 features. (Maybe the latter in 10 years, as Bruno suggested.)
