Subject: Re: Pthreads, libc, and the future
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/11/1999 17:18:22
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Graff <email@example.com> writes:
Michael> Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> What we should do here, instead, is provide those primitives in our
>> libc, and then make the pthreads package build on top of those!
Michael> I think that will be fairly difficult, since locks don't exist in a
Michael> pure vacuum. They are assiciated with a scheduler, have a list of
Michael> waiting threads, etc.
No, I don't agree. Jason is right here.
The lock can exist in libc, but until pthreads registers itself with libc
the locking primitives are no-ops.
Michael> I have a feeling by the time all the bits are split out it would have
Michael> been simplier to just include pthreads directly into libc.
I like this idea, but we aren't ready yet.
] Out and about in Ottawa. hmmm... beer. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] email@example.com http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [