Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: dick@tar.com, jasone@canonware.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible libc changes to support LinuxThreads Message-ID: <199912092125.QAA08177@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Evans wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 06:42:56AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:35:17AM -0800, Jason Evans wrote: > > > > The problem with cancellation points, libc and linuxthreads has been > > that you need to wade through libc and replace instances of, for > > example, write() with either _write() or _libc_write() in order to > > avoid propagating cancellation points where they don't belong. > > Now I understand why you claimed that making cancellation work is a lot of > work. Since that isn't currently done, do you think it would be better to > leave broken cancellation in the LinuxThreads port, or to take it out? As > things stand right now, "broken" means: > > 1) Not all mandatory cancellation points are implemented. > 2) Some functions may act as cancellation points, even though they > shouldn't. > > We can fix 1) with some symbol munging, but 2) is much more difficult, as > you point out. Have you looked at what NetBSD did with namespace? See: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/basesrc/lib/libc/include/namespace.h?rev=1.42&cvsroot=netbsd Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912092125.QAA08177>