Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 21:32:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Toren <rpt@miles.sso.loral.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A quick vote on pthreads PLZ Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951021211737.25662B-100000@miles>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Before throwing about the word POSIX, I think that a proposal of exactly
what you are intending if this is put in as part of the base OS.
Thread safe libraries? libc libC Sockets ...
POSIX fork model for threaded code?
Fork safe libraries as well?
Implementing thread specifiec data (the array indexed by the key and
thread id)?
Signal handling?
Has the FPU save/restore been fixed in pthreads recently?
With the locking in the libraries, what will the gratutious mutex locking
cost in time if the app is not threaded?
Are we looking at truely preemptive threads ( all non-atomic reads are
locked in the libraries)?
Just some food for thought. I have used pthreads since this summer to
practice threaded code analysis and construction, but I knew it was just
a package, and had limitations. If it is advertised as being part of the
OS, (and possibly POSIX) wil lit mislead people?
====================================================
Rip Toren | The bad news is that C++ is not an object-oriented |
rpt@miles.sso.loral.com | programming language. .... The good news is that |
| C++ supports object-oriented programming. |
| C++ Programming & Fundamental Concepts |
| by Anderson & Heinze |
====================================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.951021211737.25662B-100000>