[Patch] C1X threading support

[Warner Losh]

On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19:59PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
>> Hello Kostik,
>> 
>> * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>, 20111216 23:09:
>>> If application that does not use the new interface supposed to be
>>> able to implement function with new names, then the not-underscored
>>> symbols must be weak.
>> 
>> For example when an application wants to implement its own functions
>> that are named thrd_*(), for example?
> Yes. The realistic example is the code written to C99/SUSv4 conformance
> that happens to define thrd_<something>.
> 
> It might be that easiest solution is to put the functions into
> separate library, besides defining them weak.

I thought the canonical solution here was to say

#if POSIX_VISIBLE >= 201201
<prototypes here>
#endif

Except this isn't posix. :(

Warner