From owner-freebsd-java Tue Mar 6 10:22:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C91E37B719 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:22:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id NAA23283; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:22:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:22:02 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Nate Williams Cc: "Daniel M. Eischen" , java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Java and libc/libpthread In-Reply-To: <15013.10075.22410.630598@nomad.yogotech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Nate Williams wrote: > > I'm currently working on an NxN libpthread implementation as > > an interim solution until we get KSEs. The goal is to get > > this done before 5.0. > > How is this different from the current implementation? File descriptors will not be made non-blocking like they are currently in libc_r. When a thread blocks on I/O, it _really_ blocks -- no other threads will be scheduled within that [rfork_thread'd/cloned] process. Other PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM [rfork_thread] threads will continue to run. I haven't decided yet whether to allow PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS threads (which would run within the main process, and when one of them blocks the main process blocks), or to silently treat process scope threads as system scope threads. > > Unfortunately I don't have the time to help the Java porting > > effort, but I would like to hear about any problems the porters > > are having with our current libc and any expected problems from > > a libpthread that will act very similar to linuxthreads. > > Will do... Thanks. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message