Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:49:32 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition plans: libkse->libpthread Message-ID: <20030531024932.GP61246@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305301945590.10348-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305301945590.10348-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ -threads only ]
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 07:58:57PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Daniel Eischen, and lo! it spake thus:
> Sometime shortly after 5.1 release, we'll (hopefully) be
> installing libpthread as "libpthread" instead of "libkse"
> by default.
>From my comfortable position here in the peanut gallery, I've been
thinking about this. Now that we have libthr around (presumably for a
long time), mightn't it be a good idea to keep libkse and libkse, libthr
and libthr, and maybe even libc_r as libc_r, and have libpthread be a
{sym,hard}link to one of the above? Since we're ending up with multiple
libraries implementing the pthreads API, with the presumption that
they're at least nominally interchangeable, might we not want to make
that switchability explicit?
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030531024932.GP61246>