Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:22:39 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> Cc: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread/thread thr_attr_init.cthr_init.c thr_private.h thr_stack.c Message-ID: <421132BF.4060507@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050214231804.GD61763@elvis.mu.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0502141445040.22143-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <421104E5.6040705@marcuscom.com> <20050214224901.GC61763@elvis.mu.org> <20050214231259.GH40468@funkthat.com> <20050214231804.GD61763@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxime Henrion wrote: > John-Mark Gurney wrote: > >>Maxime Henrion wrote this message on Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 23:49 +0100: >> >>>I entirely understand this and when I asked you why you weren't using >>>pthread_attr_setstacksize() it was out of curiosity. Anyways, I'm >>>surprised there's still an argument about this. __FreeBSD_version bumps >>>are cheap, and if it can help reduce the maintainance burden of a port, >>>I'm all for it. >> >>My point behind not doing a version bump is that if there is knowledge >>that the program needs a large/small stack, then it should ALWAYS request >>the stack size so that it is truely portable to all platforms.. instead >>of trying to berate OS xyz into increasing their default stack size... >>or end up breaking because this program tried to create 5000 threads, but >>failed because each stack took up 1MB and required 5GB of ram on a 32bit >>system.... > > > I entirely agree with you but we can't blame this on the ports > maintainers. If they want to go ahead, patch Gstreamer so that it > requests reasonably sized stacks, and send the patch back to the > vendors, that's great, but it seems that at least in the case of > Gstreamer, it's hard to do due to how the application is designed. So > we can't just refuse to bump __FreeBSD_version because Gstreamer has > problems, especially considering how cheap a __FreeBSD_version bump is. > > >>If the patch is applicable before the default change, then it is applicable >>after, and if the patch is applicable after the default change, it was >>applicable before... > > > I also agree here. :-) > > Cheers, > Maxime Oh, just bump the version already. Far too much effort is being spent on this. The ports guys have a valid need here. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?421132BF.4060507>