From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 17 02:46:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB89437B401; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D37543F85; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h3H9k8Bg009084; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h3H9k7ow009077; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:46:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: "Sergey A. Osokin" In-Reply-To: <20030417082412.GA67305@freebsd.org.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: deischen@freebsd.org cc: jeff@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org cc: John Polstra Subject: Re: FWD: Re: May I add pthread_[gs]etconcurrency to the threads libr X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:46:11 -0000 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