From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Sep 19 15:11:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12764
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com (tlambert@usr06.primenet.com [206.165.6.206])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12742;
          Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA08475;
	Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:11:30 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199709192211.PAA08475@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2)
To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:11:29 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, nate@mt.sri.com, toor@dyson.iquest.net,
        dyson@freebsd.org, karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se, current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199709192145.PAA20992@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 19, 97 03:45:18 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > In any case, I'm convinced that it's necessary in order to fully support
> > > C-Threads.
> > 
> > Stacks in seperate address spaces are needed to fully support C-Threads?
> 
> I'm convinced that you must *fully* share thread stacks in order to
> be backwards compatible for C-Threads.  You don't *have* to do that, but
> then we're no longer backwards compatible.

OK... I had a bit of pronoun trouble with "it's" there.  8-).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.