From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 3 13:37:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA27515 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:37:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27506; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 13:37:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06943; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:36:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd006803; Thu Dec 3 14:36:39 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12033; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:36:31 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199812032136.OAA12033@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Thread locking (was Re: cvs commit: src/include pthread.h src/lib/libc_r/uthread uthread_mattr_kind_np.c uthread_mutex.c) To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:36:31 +0000 (GMT) Cc: eischen@vigrid.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jb@FreeBSD.ORG, lists@tar.com In-Reply-To: <19981129161418.W9226@follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Nov 29, 98 04:14:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > The threads library is not fully POSIX compliant yet and has to > > change if it wants to achieve that. POSIX says that we return > > EDEADLK if we detect this condition (which we can and already do). > > Do we care more about backwards compatibility or more about POSIX > > compliance? I vote for strong and strict POSIX compliance (if my > > vote counts at all ;-). > > I'm in two minds about it. I don't like breaking compatibility, and I > don't like not being conformant, and it really comes down to each > individual case. The behaviour we have now seems to be conformant to > SS2, at least, which IMO is more important than POSIX. I'm not the > maintainer, anyway, so I don't consider it within my authority to > break backwards compatibility. I would really prefer that compliance tags were placed on code in the source tree. Specifically, a pthreads that is Draft 4 complinat is a hell of a lot more useful to me than a pthreads that is "almost" Draft 10 (standard) compliant. As far as breaking compatability, nothing breaks more code than making a release that's in some twilight zone between two levels of standards compliance. I think POSIX, in general, and the O'Reilly book, in specific, are the most important rulers. Code that doesn't conform to those documents will need to be changed in any case. The only rendesvous point that independent developement efforts like Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris have in common is the published standards, for better or for worse. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message