From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 10 18:53:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA09619 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA09614 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA03364 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707110153.SAA03364@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 to: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: no SYSVSHM in GENERIC now.. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jul 1997 17:48:30 PDT." <199707110048.RAA02792@rah.star-gate.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 18:53:21 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In the mean time , out in the field: Subject: Pthread: Is there a better way? Date: 8 Jul 1997 01:09:30 GMT From: tsmurphy@cs.uiuc.edu (TERENCE MURPHY) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc I came across the man page for pthread, exuberant that the package came with the OS, and wrote a little program to test it, and worried when it didn't link. Then I read: > By default, libc_r is not built as part of a 'make world'. To build and > install, it type: > > cd /usr/src/lib/libc_r > > make depend && make all && make install I thought and then... > This assumes you have a full source tree below /usr/src and that you have > at least installed the header files in the way that 'make world' does. Ahhh!!! I seriously don't have the disk space the go out and download and compile the whole source tree. There's got to be a better way! Is there an alternative binary distribution which includes the threaded libc? Are there plans to put threads into the default system in the future? That makes sense to me. Seriously, I don't understand why it isn't already. Heck, if it's not included in the standard distribution, developers are less likely to try to depend on stuff which people aren't going to have. I also don't see why SYSVSHM isn't in the kernel by default. Otherwise, the kernel is totally usable on installation (even without a compile) For system-ish stuff (like threads and shared memory), IMHO, the system should provide that stuff without requiring a recompile. I'm a software engineer, not a system administrator!! FreeBSD follows this well (much better than the alternatives) but I think it can be improved. Thanks, Terry Murphy ------- Happy Reading, Amancio