Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:30:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Nick Johnson <freebsd@spatula.net> Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: backporting libc_r changes Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10208061521050.27161-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20020802101552.Y62438-100000@turing.morons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Nick Johnson wrote:
> Any estimates on how difficult this would be? I wouldn't mind biting it
> off if it would help us get a hotspot working under -stable and if it's
> within my capability...
It's not _that_ difficult for someone who understands the
code and the differences. I wish I had time but I'm working
on the KSE stuff. If I did have the time, I'd try to change
-current so that it would work in -stable with just a couple
of #ifdefs.
Notable differences between -current and -stable:
o system calls are _thread_sys_* in -stable and
__sys_* in -current. The threads library could
always use __SYS_* or something and conditionally
define these to be the right thing depending on
whether it was -stable or -current.
o -current doesn't include libc, so there may be
some differences due to that (cancellation
points and weak definitions might have to be
changed/removed for -stable).
--
Dan Eischen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10208061521050.27161-100000>