Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:30:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Nick Johnson <freebsd@spatula.net> Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: backporting libc_r changes Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10208061521050.27161-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20020802101552.Y62438-100000@turing.morons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Nick Johnson wrote: > Any estimates on how difficult this would be? I wouldn't mind biting it > off if it would help us get a hotspot working under -stable and if it's > within my capability... It's not _that_ difficult for someone who understands the code and the differences. I wish I had time but I'm working on the KSE stuff. If I did have the time, I'd try to change -current so that it would work in -stable with just a couple of #ifdefs. Notable differences between -current and -stable: o system calls are _thread_sys_* in -stable and __sys_* in -current. The threads library could always use __SYS_* or something and conditionally define these to be the right thing depending on whether it was -stable or -current. o -current doesn't include libc, so there may be some differences due to that (cancellation points and weak definitions might have to be changed/removed for -stable). -- Dan Eischen 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?Pine.GSO.4.10.10208061521050.27161-100000>