From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 30 11:36:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0113914E88 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:36:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10460 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:36:18 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA72481 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:36:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from houston.matchlogic.com (houston.matchlogic.com [205.216.147.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A73D14E88 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:36:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from crandall@matchlogic.com) Received: by houston.matchlogic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:36:03 -0700 Message-ID: <64003B21ECCAD11185C500805F31EC0304622184@houston.matchlogic.com> From: Charles Randall To: Allen Pulsifer , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Revisitted.. Threads goals.? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:35:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG For a portable threading system like that, take a look at Ralf Engelschall's GNU Pth, http://www.gnu.org/software/pth/ Charles -----Original Message----- From: Allen Pulsifer [mailto:pulsifer@mediaone.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 9:55 AM To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Revisitted.. Threads goals.? ... For example, if it is guaranteed that two threads bound to a process cannot be executing simultaneously, does that simplify user programming? In addition, if it is guaranteed that a thread will not surrender the CPU to another thread in its same process except at certain well defined times (a voluntary surrender, a system call, a signal) does that simplify user programming even more? Do these gains in simplicity make it worthwile not implementing what might otherwise be a powerful feature? ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message