On 3/21/09, Aayush saxena <saxena.aaaaaa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am interested in Posix C++ integration. Does this suggested > idea incorporates the integration of standard C interface of > Posix thread library by encapsulating C structure into the C++ > class? Some Posix and C-language functions are non-reentrant with > respect to threads so I would like to propose the idea of making > the C++ functions related to Posix threads reentrant. But i have > some doubt regarding this as some functions are non-reentrant > because they communicate across multiple function invocations by > maintaining state information in static library-allocated storage, > which is shared by all the threads of a process, possibly without > the benefit of synchronization. Some other functions can be > reentrant or non-reentrant depending upon there arguments. So > i would like to ask whether the idea of making C++ functions > related to threads reentrant is feasible enough to be proposed > as a GSoC project?
Much of the work in producing a C++ interface to Posix involves resolving differences between various standards and reaching agreement between interested parties on the shape of the interface. Most of that work has yet to be done. Once that work is done, though, the actual coding will be fairly easy. So, I suggest that Posix/C++ integration would not be good for a GSoC project. A project that has a narrower scope and more code would be better. -- Lawrence Crowl
