Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:09:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r/uthread pthread_private.h uthread_yield.c Message-ID: <199803080609.XAA06977@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199803080605.RAA11090@cimlogic.com.au> References: <199803080555.WAA06789@mt.sri.com> <199803080605.RAA11090@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Good enough. After using threads consistently for about 18 months, I > > *like* them, but understand that if they become too heavy, most of the > > advantages of using them go away. > > I like the programming model that allows me to block a thread while > it waits for something to complete. Aren't all threading models based on this? Everything I've read on threads (not a lot I'll admit) imply this is available in all threaded implementations. (However, you might get blocked by the OS or other code that someone else has written, but that's just the way it is.) > This makes the code linear and much easier for me to understand. I've > dropped support for operating systems which aren't threaded (like > OS9). Unfortunately WinNT is threaded and POSIX wrappers are > trivial. Sigh. Can't you emulate threads in the same manner as is done (currently) in FreeBSD? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803080609.XAA06977>