3 ms·
I personally have a number of specific gripes, but more importantly it seems odd the committee hasn't added anything to the standard since '08 (especially since
by uxcn 11y ago
I personally have a number of specific gripes, but more importantly it seems odd the committee hasn't added anything to the standard since '08 (especially since good portable software generally needs more functionality now).
As an easy example, multiprocessing has become more important between now and then. Why are things like processor affinities still not defined?
- caf 11y agoThere has been recent movement in multiprocessing - for example robust and errorchecking mutexes are now in the base spec. In the case of processor affinity, it looks to me like no-one has ever suggested it. Participating in the Austin Group is pretty open - why don't you put a proposal forward? (Maybe affinity can be added to struct sched_param somehow?)
- drewcrawford 11y ago> Participating in the Austin Group is pretty open Not really. I know someone who's spent ages trying to get O_CREATE added as an alias for O_CREAT. http://spiegelmock.com/2015/01/23/fixing-a-typo-the-hard-way-unix-standards-style/ http://spiegelmock.com/2015/01/23/fixing-a-typo-the-hard-way...
- uxcn 11y agoThis was a bit disheartening to read. I didn't see a any problem proper versioning couldn't address. Breaking backward compatibility shouldn't be an issue as long as you generally don't break forward compatibility. I was under the impression this was what the POSIX_C_SOURCE macro was meant for.
- spacemanmatt 11y agoMaybe your associate can fix referers next