Hello, Agustina Arzille, on Fri 15 Apr 2016 15:13:49 -0300, wrote: > On 2016-04-15 15:01, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >Ah, this is yet another libpthread? We need to converge on one > >implementation. There was also a proposal to just adapt nptl to Mach, > >which is probably possible now with gsync (the BSD guys told us they > >could do it quite easily). > > Well, what I have right now is heavily based on nptl, but there are > some things that are different, mostly because implementing them > in the Hurd would be very awkward, difficult, or just downright > impossible.
Ok, but why not just fixing pthread_mutex_lock & such in our current libpthread, instead of having yet another implementation? How are we supposed to handle those three implementations: Neal's, nptl, and yours? Ideally your reimplementation is perfect and we can throw away Neal's, but nobody can be perfect when writing a pthread library (been there, didn't do that ;) ), so I'm really not at ease with throwing away Neal's implementation which we have fixed over years. Samuel
