Cross-platform: Coloured text, Networking, Multithreading

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?=]

I'm currently writing a program and I've got in mind to keep it as
portable as possible. In particular I want it to run on Linux and
Windows, but I'm also keeping an open mind to any machine that has a
screen and is capable of Ethernet networking. The program requires
three things that aren't available in the C Standard:
1) Coloured text (for a console application)
2) Raw socket networking
3) Multithreading

For number 1, I've already written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses ANSI escape sequences for Linux, and Win32 API
functions for Windows).

For number 2, I've again written my own tiny little cross-platform
library (it uses Berkeley Sockets for Linux, and winpcap for Windows
-- I would have used Winsock for Windows but Winsock no longer
supports raw sockets).

For number 3, well I'm just about to delve into it now. I see that
somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to Win32, so that
looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go down that road
though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea than to use
pthreads?

[Martin Ambuhl]

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail. com wrote:

>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?

Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.

I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor. You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <gf**********@n ews.eternal-september.org>,
Martin "Mr. Compassion" Ambuhl <ma*****@earthl ink.netwrote:

>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

>On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail. com wrote:

>>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?

>Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.

I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor. You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.

IOW, welcome to CLC. We hope you enjoy your stay.

[jameskuyper]

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

On Nov 12, 11:27�pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@su n.comwrote:

Perhaps you could ask in comp.programmin g.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Your sarcasm is a little addictive but I'll try to resist. I asked the
question on comp.lang.c because I'm writing a program in C.

So, by the same logic, if you were writing a program that accumulated
football statistics, you'd feel that the fact that it was written in C
was sufficiently good reason to post questions here about football
arcana relevant to your program?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic; but I'm also curious about how you reached
such a bizarre conclusion.

[William Hughes]

On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam. invalidwrote:

On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
than to use pthreads?

Perhaps you could ask in comp.programmin g.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.

Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility") .

- William Hughes

[Eric Sosman]

William Hughes wrote:

On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam. invalidwrote:

>On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:

>>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
than to use pthreads?
Perhaps you could ask in comp.programmin g.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.

Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility") .

Exactly. What Twink has demonstrated is that it hardly takes
an expert to spout nonsense, but that it may take an expert to
spot it.

No matter what forum Tomás selects for his questions on threads
(or on any other topic), he will probably get answers that are a
mixture of sense and nonsense. On a forum where experts hang out
the nonsense will be rebutted; on a forum where the experts are
scarce it may go unchallenged.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[Chris M. Thomasson]

"William Hughes" <wp*******@hotm ail.comwrote in message
news:97******** *************** ***********@r36 g2000prf.google groups.com...
On Nov 12, 1:54 pm, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam. invalidwrote:

On 12 Nov 2008 at 16:27, Eric Sosman wrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>I see that somebody has already ported the "pthreads" library to
>Win32, so that looks like a very attractive option. Just before I go
>down that road though, I'd like to ask if anyone has a better idea
>than to use pthreads?

Perhaps you could ask in comp.programmin g.threads, where the
threading experts hang out?

Oh come on, Eric - it hardly takes a world expert on threading to be
able to say that pthreads is an excellent choice, and if it's available
on all the target platforms then go for it.

Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know
that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the pthread
model
thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread based mutexes.
I remember being burned by this a few years back. I have no idea if
it is still a problem. This is the problem with non-expert advice,
not only are the non-experts ignorant of something, they may well
think
that they are not (The bug was subtle and didn't hit at first.
Before
that my advice would have been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully
used
these when I needed Linux/Windows compatibility") .

There are several options wrt porting some PThread applications over to
Windows:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/i.../bb380242.aspx

http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32

http://www.cygwin.com

[Keith Thompson]

"Chris M. Thomasson" <[e-mail] dwrites:

"William Hughes" <wp*******@hotm ail.comwrote in message
news:97******** *************** ***********@r36 g2000prf.google groups.com...

[...]

>Perhaps not. But it would certainly take an expert on threading to
know that the underlying Windows model does not adapt well to the
pthread model thus leading to some subtle bugs when using thread
based mutexes. I remember being burned by this a few years back.
I have no idea if it is still a problem. This is the problem with
non-expert advice, not only are the non-experts ignorant of
something, they may well think that they are not (The bug was
subtle and didn't hit at first. Before that my advice would have
been, "Use pthreads, I have successfully used these when I needed
Linux/Windows compatibility") .

There are several options wrt porting some PThread applications over
to Windows:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/i.../bb380242.aspx

http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32

http://www.cygwin.com

That may be true, but it doesn't address the concerns raised by
William Hughes. Once again, the folks in comp.programmin g.threads are
likely to know a lot more about this than we are.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Heathfield]

Lorenzo Villari said:

>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell. xmission.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:gf******** *@news.xmission .com...

>>
You will soon learn that this newsgroup is about everything except C.

So split it. comp.lang.c and comp.lang.iso-c :)

Note that Mr McCormack is either lying, incorrect, or making a not very
successful foray into the world of sarcasm.

comp.lang.c already serves the purpose that you appear to have in mind for
comp.lang.iso-c, making that suggestion redundant.

For discussing things that aren't ISO C, we already have over 80,000
newsgroups. Why would we need yet another?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Martin Ambuhl said:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

>On Nov 12, 11:39 pm, vipps...@gmail. com wrote:

>>How cute. Why do we need to know all this?

>Because your head is vacuous and I wanted to offer you a filler.

I suppose you think that is clever. It only marks you as at least one
of an idiot or a boor.

Possibly both.

You haven't yet made it to my killfile, but keep
it up and you will. I suspect that several people who could have been
useful to you when you have a legitimate C question will have already
sent you to their bozo bins.

Yes. He hit my killfile some months ago, for racism, of all things.

I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of his racist attitude continue to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

(But then I find many things surprising.)

When you stop, worry.

--
Ian Collins