News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us. Parent comment

Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by loeg on Thursday January 23, 2025 @12:21PM (#42805893)
The p in pthreads stands for Posix. I.e., uh, Posix is neither set in stone, nor entirely predates threads.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by kibwen on Thursday January 23, 2025 @02:25PM (#42807129)
And when can we expect the version of Posix that fixes setenv to be MT-safe?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by loeg on Thursday January 23, 2025 @05:30PM (#42808743)
You've shifted the goalposts from the comment I responded to.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by kibwen on Friday January 24, 2025 @12:21PM (#42815281)
Not at all, because if Posix wasn't set in stone, then surely it would take somewhat less than three-ish decades to fix this problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by pjmlp on Thursday January 23, 2025 @04:38PM (#42808354)
I am old enough to remeber when UNIX only had processes, and several thread designs were being discussed until eventually pthreads one design won.

POSIX predates adoption of threads in the UNIX world.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by loeg on Thursday January 23, 2025 @05:29PM (#42808740)
Yes, yes, but also post-dates adoption of threads. It's an ongoing standard.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:C stdlib isn't threadsafe and even safe Rust didn't save us by pjmlp on Friday January 24, 2025 @01:32AM (#42810995)
Which only standardises existing practice, not inventing new ideas.

So first everyone implementing POSIX has to agree to move forward with thread safety where it fails short.

[ Parent | on HN ]