Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:28:22 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: first patch for process-shared semaphore Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10912240828x636d9f3ficc9035b0aa584334@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091223221219.4416cef6@kan.dnsalias.net> References: <4B317741.8080004@freebsd.org> <20091223074707.2a7ca9d6@kan.dnsalias.net> <4B32C25A.8040703@freebsd.org> <20091223203539.400bbfda@kan.dnsalias.net> <4B32CADA.4010407@freebsd.org> <20091223221219.4416cef6@kan.dnsalias.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/12/24 Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:58:50 +0800 > David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Alexander Kabaev wrote: >> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:22:34 +0800 >> > David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> libthr does not require semaphore, it implements semaphore, >> >> it is easier than other ways to implement the process-shared. >> >> >> > Let me rephrase: I do not think semaphores belong in libthr. They >> > should be either in libc or in librt. >> > >> > >> OK, does others really implement semaphore in librt ? >> unfortunately, the librt already requires libpthread to implement >> SIGEV_THREAD. > > I retract that. It appears that there is no consistency - Solaris put > these into libc, Linux into libpthread ans SUSv2 hints that these > belong with realtime functions. libthr is fine. Beside that, though, semaphores should be thread library-agnostic so I would implement them into a different namespace (libc, for the POSIX compatibility, seems the most appropriate choice). Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10912240828x636d9f3ficc9035b0aa584334>