From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 8 11:27:18 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 2C8F414EE5 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id OAA01949; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:24:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199904081824.OAA01949@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: dick@tar.com, eischen@vigrid.com Subject: Re: Linuxthreads "port" status and a request Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > So any application that wants to use Linuxthreads must ensure that > > /include is first in the include path so that pthread.h and > > pthread_np.h are found there instead of /usr/include? This seems > > to make sense to me. > > Almost. Its got to be /include/something_unique rather than > just /include, but other than that, yes. The reason it has > to be unique is that lots of ports already do -I/usr/local/include, > and for those that are threaded and want FreeBSD user threads, > they'ed get the wrong headers if the linux pthread.h was in > /usr/local/include. Hmm, well you could still put your version of the FreeBSD modified pthread[_np].h in /usr/include and conditionalize inclusion of /usr/include/pthread.h with #ifndef _LINUXTHREADS. > > I haven't looked at Linuxthreads, but is it possible for our pthread.h > > and pthread_np.h to be compatible (assuming we add missing capabilities)? > > I think the differences are very extensive, so apart from one big > #ifdef clause that totally bifurcates pthread.h, I'd say no. Too bad :( Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message