Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:21:29 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libkse -> libpthreads Message-ID: <20030422015621.P29990-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304211802560.20923-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > Solaris libthr is not a 1:1 thread library - the difference between > > Yes, I believe it now is. > If by "now" you mean Solaris 9, then yes, this is so. This is not a fundamental issue, merely how kernel API-s are used. On Solaris 8 you get both the "old" M:N version and the Solaris 9 style 1:1 version in /usr/lib/lwp. There is no way to tell what it will be in Solaris 9+x for some arbitrary positive value of x. > > libpthread and libthread is that libthread implements UI (sometimes also > > called Solaris) threads, and not pthreads. > > And libthr threads are sorta like native threads. > No. The 'native' threads are LWP-s and both libthread and libpthread are implemented in terms of LWPs and related syscalls. [snip] > > so it would be evil to force people > > to explicitly link against one or the other causing future compatibility > > problems. Both provide the same pthreads API so there is no reasonable > > case for demanding that one of them can't have its SONAME be > > libpthpread.so.1 > > We can, in libpthread, build it so that every thread is 1:1. > True, we might not be able to do this without a small > amount of overhead right now, but it will be possible in the > future. If built that way, we can install it as libthr so > that any application relying on libthr.so.1 will still have > it there. This has been one of my goals for some time. > > I want libpthread to get out there for 5.1. I want to see > those bug reports roll in, so that by the time 5.2 (-stable) > comes around we have a good handle on what the problems are > and have addressed them. We have 3 people (David Xu, Julian, > and myself) wanting to maintain this and keep it moving > forward. I don't want to see it go away. > If you are confident that a working libkse is available and that there will not be a support nightmerte afterwards, then naturaly, my objections to the naming scheme evaporate. > -- > Dan Eischen >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030422015621.P29990-100000>