From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr  7 01:09:29 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D3737B401
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  7 Apr 2003 01:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from park.rambler.ru (park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB1043F85
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  7 Apr 2003 01:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from is@rambler-co.ru)
Received: from is.park.rambler.ru (is.park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.102])
	by park.rambler.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3789RmF024211;
	Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:09:27 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:09:26 +0400 (MSD)
From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>
X-Sender: is@is
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E8CAD52.531E0A9@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304071202520.40397-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:09:29 -0000

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:

> Igor Sysoev wrote:
> > So I think programmers never use this flag and select()/etc for disk
> > files (because it's useless) and I think supporting this flag for disk
> > files should not break existent software.
> > But of course it creates portability problems.
> 
> For FreeBSD's libc_r?  You have got to be kidding, when you talk
> about portability of FreeBSD's libc_r!
>
> The effect in the old sigsched threads implementation from the
> comp.sources.unix archive would merely be to provide a latency
> optimization on the OS's which support it.
> 
> I think that there is no portability problem; only that it would
> cause some software to run faster on FreeBSD than on other OS's,
> were it to be used.

No, I do not mean portability of libc_r.

I mean that if FreeBSD would support select() for disk files there can
be the programs that will use this feature directly without any wrappers
and these programs would have the portability problems.

It's something like some Linux programs use a specific signal behaviour
of Linux clone()d pthreads.


Igor Sysoev
http://sysoev.ru/en/