Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:24:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: dick@tar.com, eischen@vigrid.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linuxthreads "port" status and a request Message-ID: <199904081824.OAA01949@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > So any application that wants to use Linuxthreads must ensure that > > <PREFIX>/include is first in the include path so that pthread.h and > > pthread_np.h are found there instead of /usr/include? This seems > > to make sense to me. > > Almost. Its got to be <PREFIX>/include/something_unique rather than > just <PREFIX>/include, but other than that, yes. The reason it has > to be unique is that lots of ports already do -I/usr/local/include, > and for those that are threaded and want FreeBSD user threads, > they'ed get the wrong headers if the linux pthread.h was in > /usr/local/include. Hmm, well you could still put your version of the FreeBSD modified pthread[_np].h in /usr/include and conditionalize inclusion of /usr/include/pthread.h with #ifndef _LINUXTHREADS. > > I haven't looked at Linuxthreads, but is it possible for our pthread.h > > and pthread_np.h to be compatible (assuming we add missing capabilities)? > > I think the differences are very extensive, so apart from one big > #ifdef clause that totally bifurcates pthread.h, I'd say no. Too bad :( Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904081824.OAA01949>