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?
> > > >
> > >
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
>
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
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
|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
"Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:49:23AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> > "Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
> > > _THREAD_SAFE is only used in stdio.h. Looking at what's there, it could
> > > be rewritten to eliminate _THREAD_SAFE entirely, at a (very slight)
> > > perform
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:49:23AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> "Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
> > _THREAD_SAFE is only used in stdio.h. Looking at what's there, it could
> > be rewritten to eliminate _THREAD_SAFE entirely, at a (very slight)
> > performance penalty. You'd have to check __isthr
"Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:00:53PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>
> > > 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
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:00:53PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> > 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
> > _spinlo
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
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
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
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
>"Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
>> [lost attribution]
>> > Also, the cc(1) says to use -D_THREADSAFE not -D_THREAD_SAFE.
>> Hmm. Not on my machine. :)
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=cc&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+3.0-current&format=html
This was chan
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
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
"Richard Seaman, Jr." wrote:
> > BTW, why does FreeBSD use -D_THREAD_SAFE AND -D_REENTRANT (math.h)
> > while most other PThread (final) implementations use -D_REENTRANT?
> Don't know. Using _REENTRANT would be preferable, IMO.
Now if only a committer would agree... (I'll send patches if needed)
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Hi,
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 installs a pthread.h into
> /usr/local/include
24 matches
Mail list logo