Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:01:30 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Pablo Mora <fbsd.hackers@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: problem handling POSIX thread on FreeBSD Message-ID: <200506290501.31301.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <a9e342b5050628165829056922@mail.gmail.com> References: <a9e342b5050626200472f78ea5@mail.gmail.com> <200506271318.36748.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <a9e342b5050628165829056922@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 07:58 pm, Pablo Mora wrote: > Ok, I understand, but by being threads POSIX should be executed of the > same one in any type of S.OR? Not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by S.O? Are you sayi= ng=20 that since the threads are POSIX, that you would expect the program to act= =20 the same on all Operating Systems? That's not an entirely safe assumption = to=20 make in that POSIX only guarantees that things like mutexes work (and it=20 specifically states that you have to unlock a mutex in the same thread you= =20 locked it, what you were doing would result in undefined behavior). POSIX= =20 doesn't make any guarantees about how threads are scheduled with respect to= =20 one another. =2D-=20 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> =A0<>< =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =A0=3D =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506290501.31301.jhb>