From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 30 19:49:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDA637B401 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 19:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from praetor.linc-it.com (hardtime.linuxman.net [66.147.26.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6773243FAF for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 19:49:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-156-172-64.jan.bellsouth.net [66.156.172.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by praetor.linc-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD0515482; Fri, 30 May 2003 21:49:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 3C0C420F27; Fri, 30 May 2003 21:49:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:49:32 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Daniel Eischen Message-ID: <20030531024932.GP61246@over-yonder.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition plans: libkse->libpthread X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 02:49:36 -0000 [ -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"