From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 15 15:17:09 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA29188 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from melb.werple.net.au (melb.werple.net.au [203.9.190.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA29181 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cimaxp1.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with UUCP id IAA08384 for mira!FreeBSD.org!freebsd-hackers; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:00:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199608152200.IAA08384@melb.werple.net.au> Received: by cimaxp1.cimlogic.com.au; (5.65/1.1.8.2/10Sep95-0953AM) id AA23483; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:00:44 +1000 From: John Birrell Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. NT Stability To: haldjas.folklore.ee!narvi@melb.werple.net.au (Narvi) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 08:00:43 +1000 (EST) Cc: keltia.freenix.fr!roberto@melb.werple.net.au, FreeBSD.org!freebsd-hackers@melb.werple.net.au In-Reply-To: from "Narvi" at Aug 15, 96 11:03:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Before -current, you'd have to get pthread by yourself and worry about some > > functions in libc not aware about threads... > > Hmmm... I do not speak for anyone but myself but weren't they eing > developed on a 2.1.0 or -stable box? They work (at least worked) with > stable for me. I normally run libc_r from -current on 2.1.0R (haven't received a 2.1.5R subscription CD from WC). I doubt there were any syscall interface changes from 2.1.0R to 2.2-current that would affect libc. > > Sander > -- John Birrell CIMlogic Pty Ltd jb@cimlogic.com.au 119 Cecil Street Ph +61 3 9690 6900 South Melbourne Vic 3205 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Australia Mob +61 18 353 137