Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:14:16 +1030 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> Cc: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com>, "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>, java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Java and libc/libpthread Message-ID: <20010308111416.A24274@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <20010307161130.A4910@gnuppy>; from billh@gnuppy.monkey.org on Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:11:30PM -0800 References: <3AA52622.CA33EBE2@vigrid.com> <20010308015558.B43890@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20010307161130.A4910@gnuppy>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:11:30PM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:55:58AM +1030, Greg Lewis wrote:
> > 3. As I've been tinkering with the the 1.3 code I've so far been
> > using the linuxthreads port to try and get native threads running
> > as that means our code stays very very similar to the code for
> > native threads under Linux. I haven't succeeded with this yet,
> > but I don't believe thats because it can't work (its just lack of
> > time to debug things so far).
>
> What ? Screw that. The LinuxThreads signal interaction with SIGCHLD,
> etc... within an ill concieved thread/signal semantics specification
> (aka Unix) is going to to be murder to deal with.
Well, off the top, I'll disclaim anything approaching thorough knowledge
of the various thread implementations being discussed :).
In terms of linuxthreads there were a number of reasons I chose that at
the time:
(a) I wasn't aware of your BSD/OS work.
(b) I wanted to use something as close as possible to the implementations
that came with the code, since I didn't have a lot of time to rework
things.
(c) I figured most of the issues would have been dealt with during the
Linux port of the JDK.
(d) Its (currently) the only mainstream kernel-based thread interface for
FreeBSD.
None of this means its the best choice now (or even was then :).
> I recommend doing it using the normal Solaris/Pthreads code instead.
>
> I also might be able to get our pthread library to the general FreeBSD
> community which might help with your port since we have it pretty well
> debugged for our (this) purposes. I haven't seen the FreeBSD pthreads
> userspace library so I can't comment on the benefits and draw backs of
> doing this ?
>
> What do you think ?
It sounds like the BSD/OS pthreads library is very similar to the current
FreeBSD pthreads library, given Daniel's comments in a followup post. So
I think the bulk of your work is probably applicable to a FreeBSD port.
That probably means there is no need to move the BSD/OS pthreads library
over to FreeBSD. Note that the 1.2.2 port also supports NetBSD and has
started an attempt on OpenBSD too. We definitely want to keep this support
for 1.3, since it increases the volunteer pool (and the bulk of the port
is the same).
I think that given your work and Daniel's post on a kernel based pthread
implementation in the work that its a good idea to switch over to the
FreeBSD pthreads interface. I think this will be the best overall fit
with everyones goals.
All IMO of course :).
--
Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond Mobile: 0419 868 494
Information Technology Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010308111416.A24274>