Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Doug Rabson
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian Feldman wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > > > > > >

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > *confused look* > > > > somehow even though i've been trying to follow this thread i got lost. > > > > questions: > > 1) are 'linuxthreads' enabled by defualt now? > > The terminology is a little confusing. There's "linuxthreads" for those >

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:47:53PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > *confused look* > > somehow even though i've been trying to follow this thread i got lost. > > questions: > 1) are 'linuxthreads' enabled by defualt now? The terminology is a little confusing. There's "linuxthreads" for those

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Russell L. Carter wrote: > |Maybe having just one pthread.h that pulls in the required headers > |based on a switch (eg. -DLINUXTHREADS) is the way to go? > > Doing this makes linuxthread support more or less "official", I would > think. > > I am for it. *confused look* s

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Russell L. Carter
|Maybe having just one pthread.h that pulls in the required headers |based on a switch (eg. -DLINUXTHREADS) is the way to go? Doing this makes linuxthread support more or less "official", I would think. I am for it. Russell | |-- |Richard Seamman, Jr. email: d...@tar.com |5182 N. Map

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Brian Feldman
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > > > > > I have no idea. I was hoping that at least COMPAT_LINUX_THREA

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:38:14PM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 09:11:51AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > Actually, the new version, in FreeBSD "ports" form, doesn't require > > > -DLINUXTHRE

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:39:28PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote: > d...@tar.com said: > %libc_r could be modified so that is doesn't replace libc, but rather > %is an addon, comparable to the kernel threaded libc case. But, it > %would involve a bit of work. > > I thought so at first, but then

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-22 Thread Doug Rabson
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > > > I have no idea. I was hoping that at least COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS > > would go away before the branch. I don't have commi

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Russell L. Carter
d...@tar.com said: %For kernel threading you just use libc. Whether or not libc generates % thread safe (re-entrant) calls depends on whether its also linked %with a library that 1) sets __isthreaded to a non-zero value, 2) has a %_spinlock() implementationm, and 3) implements the functions %flock

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Peter Wemm
Julian Elischer wrote: [..] > > > I just realised however, that if we make them go away we break > > > SMP right? > > > > No. I don't think the patches affect SMP one way or the other. > > If someone tries to run kernel threads of any kind (linuxthreads > > in emulation, linuxthread in FreeBSD n

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:42:14AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > >This is nagging at me. Having two headers of the same name, but importantly > >different content is asking for touble. There needs to be a way to ensure > >that only one or the other is picked up. The best way I can think of i

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:04:38AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > > > > > I have no idea. I was hoping that

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:04:38AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > > > I have no idea. I was hoping that at least COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS > > would go away before the branch.

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Kurt D. Zeilenga
At 06:12 PM 1/21/99 +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote: >On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 09:11:51AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: >> Actually, the new version, in FreeBSD "ports" form, doesn't require >> -DLINUXTHREADS anymore, but it does require -I/usr/local/include to >> pick up the right header, since it ins

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > And when are COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS and VM_STACK going away? > > I have no idea. I was hoping that at least COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS > would go away before the branch. I don't have commit authority, > so it isn't up to me. > hmm did you send me

Re: Using LinuxThreads

1999-01-21 Thread Richard Seaman, Jr.
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 09:11:51AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > Actually, the new version, in FreeBSD "ports" form, doesn't require > > -DLINUXTHREADS anymore, but it does require -I/usr/local/include to > > pick up the right