LOL. “important” when C++ standard did horrible mistakes like C++17 filesystem, charconv, C++20 format etc.
They are not. They made bad standard that adds implementation, binary size and performance burden to everyone. They do not even consider the implementation difficulties in the first place and that leads to the mess you’ve seen today. Mingw-w64 is technically x86_64-windows-gnu (which is to support GCC with microsoft’s own C runtime.) If you want something that is “POSIX-compliant” to work on windows, feel free to go cygwin. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows From: Jacek Caban<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 15:52 To: LIU Hao<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; JonY<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Adding a new thread model to GCC On 11/14/22 09:57, LIU Hao wrote: > 在 2022/10/25 04:50, Jacek Caban 写道: >> >> This also may be supported in existing threading models. Overflow is >> trivial to fix by waiting in a loop. (There are other reasons why OS >> support for absolute timeout is slightly better, but the price of >> this design decision makes it questionable. I plan to elaborate more >> on that on mingw ML, but I need to find time to do a bit of research >> first). >> >> > > What's the status of your 'a bit of research'? This looks like > procrastination to me. I was short on spare time lately, my apologies. I was planning to learn your code to have more insightful comments, but it requires non-trivial amount of time that I couldn't allocate. Anyway, I don't think there is any procrastination, your threading model is merged after all. Meantime, Eric updated his patches on gcc-patches. I wonder what's the next step for them? Jon? > Do you (and some others) consider standard conformance not-a-thing; or > should we maintain such bug-to-bug compatibility, letting users to > solve such issues themselves? I think that when there is a real bug, we should fix it. As for standard themselves, I think that C/C++ standards are important. Praising POSIX-alike standards for mingw-w64, who's CRT is a wrapper around Windows system CRT, seems a bit misplaced for me. Using it makes sense sometimes, but I don't think it should be a goal on its own. For full POSIX compatibility, one needs something like Cygwin, MSYS or WSL2 anyway. Unless it's not clear, I appreciate your efforts to fix things. I just don't agree that some (admittedly important) implementation details are the best way to fix them. Thanks, Jacek _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
