Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:41:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: dick@tar.com, jasone@canonware.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible libc changes to support LinuxThreads Message-ID: <199912092241.RAA19312@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > Actually, I don't think all that many apps use pthread_cancel(). > Its kind of messy to use. Most can get along without it, which > is why there have only been a limited number of complaints about > the lack of pthread_cancel() in libc_r (until recently). BTW, > I haven't looked at libc_r's new cancellation functions. How do > they avoid propagating cancellation points in libc without > changing libc? Maybe they have an idea that can be used here? Hi Richard, Libc_r doesn't avoid propagating cancellation points. A read() from within a libc(_r) function will still be a cancellation point. We had to weigh the lack of having pthread_cancel() versus having pthread_cancel() with non-standard cancellation points. In the end, only those applications that use pthread_cancel() are affected. I think the number of complaints saying "Hey, pthread_cancel support has non-standard cancellation points" will be less than the number of complaints because we don't have _any_ pthread_cancel support. Well, that's what I hope anyways ;-) Time will probably prove me wrong... Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912092241.RAA19312>