Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:46:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@freebsd.org.ru> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: FWD: Re: May I add pthread_[gs]etconcurrency to the threads libr Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304170525270.5432-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030417082412.GA67305@freebsd.org.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:44:09AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > > Sergey, > > > > FYI -- Dan Eischen asked me not to commit your changes to > > libpthread. I then told him he should at least try to use your man > > page and credit you appropriately. > > > > I also told him that he's wrong about returning ENOTSUP, according > > to the standards. > > > > John > > So, I can't understand Daniel's position. Because usually POSIX functions are either fully implemented or not implemented at all. I took a look at the POSIX spec and this is not the case with pthread_[gs]setconcurrency; they do match what you say. > AFAIK at this time real implementation of that fuctions not yet avaliable. > If it not yet avaliable - I think we must use this implementation. > In near future, when the other implementations to be avaliable, > somebody immediatly replace old fake implementation with new real one. You missed my response that said I am implementing them "for real" (not fake) and that I had a slew of other changes. I am a day or so away from commiting my changes (this is for libpthread, not libc_r or libthr). -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10304170525270.5432-100000>