[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09
> 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
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
Main Index |
Thread Index |