[cgl_discussion] Re: POSIX requirements question for TEMs/ISVs/OEMs

Howell, David P david.p.howell at intel.com
Tue Feb 11 08:14:46 PST 2003

These are all covered in the basic POSIX threading feature set
specification which I am assuming is already a requirement. There may be
upgrades for 1003.2001, but I think that we are signed up to that

Am I missing something? I know that we have been running the POSIX
tests since CGL began and most of these obejcts (except barriers) were
part of this testing. Might it be right to call out the rev of the
standard that we will conform to, assuming that the thread lock objects
are included?

Doing this piece-meal is also wrong, at least let's call out the threads
component of POSIX which includes these if we are going this way.
Specific feature sets, like real-time extensions to the base, should be
called out
in addition to the base capabilities. 

Dave Howell  

-----Original Message-----
From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail at cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:31 AM
To: Chen, Terence; cgl discussion
Subject: [cgl_discussion] Re: POSIX requirements question for

At 2/4/2003 10:19 AM -0800, Chen, Terence wrote:
>As we are working on the CGL 2.0 requirements spec, I have a POSIX
>requirements question that will need your help. Your input is extremely
>important especially if your telecom application is currently relies on
>POSIX functions .....
>Currently CGL 1.1 spec listed 6 POSIX interface (objects) APIs
compliance as
>requirements. They are Timer, Signal, Message Queue, Semaphore, and
>Question: What are other POSIX objects that your telecom application
>on that we should consider to add to CGL 2.0 spec as new requirements?
>example, we might consider to add Mutex (under <pthread.h> ). Is there

Here is the priortized list from my perspective:
  Reader-Writer Lock


>These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of Intel

cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list