From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 4 8: 0:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B071551D for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id KAA17005; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:59:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199910041459.KAA17005@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: asmodai@wxs.nl, eischen@vigrid.com Subject: Re: On pthreads [Was: Re: I was accepted to LokiHack '99 at Atlanta Linux Showcase] Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, nordwick@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu, shocking@prth.pgs.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > >We could implement pthread_cancel rather easily (I have some crufty > >patches lying around somewhere to do it), but it wouldn't be nearly > >POSIX compliant. Some non-cancellable routines would be cancellable, > >and vice-versa I think too. > > We need to make a start somewhere, since no pthread_cancel makes us even > less compliant =P I know. I brought this up with John Birrell and it was thought my time would be better spent working on user over kernel thread implementations. If there are ports/applications that really could use a non-POSIX compliant pthread_cancel support, then I can implement it. I just don't want to open a can of worms when it gets added and doesn't work as POSIX specifies it should. > I neither have the docs, experience nor time to be of any help save that > I can try patches/compilations for you. > > I found these people in reference to libc_r whom could prove helpful or > insightful for your endeavours: > > John Birrell > Peter Dufault All my changes get reviewed and approved by JB (the MAINTAINER) :-) Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message