Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:30:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread Makefile src/lib/libpthread/test thr_concurrency.c thr_create.c thr_find_thread.c thr_init.c thr_kern.c thr_nanosleep.c thr_private.h thr_sig.c thr_sigmask.c ... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307171919510.15862-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307171609200.4588-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > This makes it possible to make the same code run in the same mode as > libthr. > > we have not compared them for performance yet. > it is also not fully decided how this will be done in production.. > will we have 2 libraries and selct one? Or will it be possible to > use a run-time selector? > At the moment it is a compile time selection as to which you make and > a run-time (via libmap) decision wich you link to.. Or -l<libofchoice> There is not much code removed when compiling for 1:1, and David actually had an earlier version of it that was based on just a variable being set to true or false. If the library knew (at init time) if it was called libpthread or libthread, it could automatically do the right thing. > We'll probably make a libpthread-1:1.so and a libpthread-m:n.so. > As they are the same code the interface is pretty much guaranteed to be > the same.. Note that like libthr, the 1:1 version is incapable of doing > process-scope threads, but otherwise they are compatible. I'd like to make libpthread and libthread (ala Solaris). Note that even in 1:1 mode, POSIX semantics for priority ceiling and inheritence mutexes, as well as wakeup ordering for condition variables, still work. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10307171919510.15862-100000>