From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 9 13:25:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA09D15687 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:25:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id QAA08177; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:25:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:25:26 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199912092125.QAA08177@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: dick@tar.com, jasone@canonware.com Subject: Re: Possible libc changes to support LinuxThreads Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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