Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:20:44 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libpthread vs libthr. Message-ID: <20061111022044.8191e1c8.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20061110151247.GA64530@zone3000.net> References: <20061110151247.GA64530@zone3000.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:12:47 +0200 Nikolay Pavlov <quetzal@zone3000.net> wrote: > Hi. In this post i am not trying to raise a discussion about teoretical > advantages of some special threading model, but still i would like to > figure out why libthr in it current state is not our default posix > thread library and could it be so in time of 7-STABLE? I don't agree. Do test, run by again, do test. I read a discussion about libpthread vs libthr, so I tested on my environments(7-current SMP and 6-stable UP). My result is NOT YET, and I resurrected to libpthread environment. 1. libthr is not enough mature. At this time, libpthread's pthread API support > libthr's pthread API support. So libthr lacks of compatibility with libpthread. It is not good. 2. Not PTHREAD_CFLAGS/PTHREAD_LIBS clean At this time, tinderbox doesn't test PTHREAD_CFLAGS/ PTHREAD_LIBS clean. We have need to check PTHREAD_CFLAGS/ PTHREAD_LIBS clean on all ports. 3. Is libthr environments useful? I don't think. Yes, I think that some applications like mysql are useful. However, in all FreeBSD environment system, by 1 and 2, libthr is not useful.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061111022044.8191e1c8.nork>