1 files changed, 7 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/README.NONPORTABLE b/README.NONPORTABLE
index 35ff44f..e25fc50 100644
--- a/README.NONPORTABLE
+++ b/README.NONPORTABLE
@@ -347,8 +347,6 @@ rewritten.]
 

 Doesn't the compiler take care of padding?

 

-Answer a question with two questions: Which compiler? Which language?

-

 The C89 and later standards only effectively guarrantee element-by-element

 equivalence following an assignment or pass by value of a struct or union,

 therefore undefined areas of any two otherwise equivalent pthread_t instances

@@ -396,11 +394,10 @@ pthread_null()
 pthread_compare()

 pthread_hash()

 

-However these are very specific and are unlikely to make it into the

-standard. A signle more general purpose function can be defined as a

-basis for all three of the above functions.

+A single more general purpose function could also be defined as a

+basis for at least the last two of the above functions.

 

-But first we need to list the freedoms and constraints with restpect

+First we need to list the freedoms and constraints with restpect

 to pthread_t so that we can be sure our solution is compatible with the

 standard.

 

@@ -414,13 +411,10 @@ itself.
 at compile-time and size-invariant, because it must be able to copy the object

 (i.e. through assignment and pass-by-value). Such copies must be genuine

 duplicates, not merely a copy of a pointer to a common instance such as

-would be the case if pthread_t were defined as an array. There is evidence that

-this is or was the intention also in the rationale, where it expects that

-pthread_t is hashable, and that is only possible if the application can

-determine the size of pthread_t (e.g. via sizeof() in C).

+would be the case if pthread_t were defined as an array.

 

 

-The following candidate function is proposed

+Suppose we define the following function:

 

 /* This function shall return it's argument */

 pthread_t* pthread_normalize(pthread_t* thread);

@@ -446,7 +440,7 @@ Advantages:
 1) In most existing implementations this function would reduce to a no-op that

 emits no additional instructions, i.e after in-lining or optimisation, or if

 defined as a macro:

-#define pthread_normalise(tptr) tptr

+#define pthread_normalise(tptr) (tptr)

 

 2) This single function allows an application to portably derive

 application-level versions of any of the other required functions.

@@ -633,7 +627,7 @@ t = null_tid;
 

 

 Note that we don't have to explicitly make use of the __size array at all. It's

-there just to alter the semantics of the compiler.

+there just to force the compiler behaviour we want.

 

 

 Partial solutions without a pthread_normalize function