Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09

[Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

> Bringing SA back invents more than 3000 lines of very
> complicated code.  Why?
>
> - To support specific backwards compatibility which we never actually
>   supported (see what Andrew and Jason wrote).

It's my opinion that such a statement is attempting to rewrite
history.

If my memory isn't failing me, it was only after the introduction
of 1:1 threading that it was deemed required to modify the
backward compatibility rule.  This is a considerable change from
the way we have operated in the past, and, unsurprisingly by now,
one that I'm not entirely happy with.  Therefore, for that reason
alone, I support getting the revivesa into the tree.

Integrating the 1:1 pthread library into the C library will make
it even more difficult to experiment with any other threading
model, effectively shutting the door on SA, and I don't
understand why people are clamoring for a monopoly on this
function.

Regards,

- Håvard