Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vljk2b$g76$3@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <677c7a1b$0$28501$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <vljbvv$gl9$1@reader2.panix.com> <677d4e48$0$28053$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="16614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 1892
Lines: 26

In article <677d4e48$0$28053$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
Nicolas George  <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
>Dan Cross, dans le message <vljbvv$gl9$1@reader2.panix.com>, a �crit�:
>> This, however, does not follow.  I don't see why "poll" is
>> strictly required for IO concurrency.
>
>Well, try to do implement anything non-trivial involving I/O concurrency,
>including timeouts, clients causing other clients to abort, etc., with
>the common denominator of POSIX threads and come back telling us how you
>managed that.

Well, this is rather more involved than what you'd originally
said, which was just IO concurrency.

But if you've got a dedicated IO thread with a known tid, I
don't see why you couldn't do this with
`pthread_cond_timedwait` and signals.

But at this point, I'll gladly admit that `poll` et al may be
more convenient, if not required.

>I tried, and stopped trying using threads for I/O concurrency.

I'm not saying it's easy.

	- Dan C.