This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> But you are not using it on a system which has a really functional > thread implementation. Nor is anyone else using the sysdeps/posix implementations. What on earth is your point? (Anyway, the hurd does have a "really function thread implementation", as in programs that are multithreaded really work--that has been the case since before you took over glibc. What it does not have is a pthreads implementation, which is a fine reason for people to expect to cope with not having a pread function in libc 2.1.) > Fact is that there is and will be systems using glibc without having > threads. You force the porters to have own copies of the code we now > have in sysdeps/posix for no other reason but that the porters to > complete Unix systems might overlook this broken implementation. You seem to have forgotten what sysdeps is all about. Create a sysdeps/posix/singlethreaded for those systems to use and voila. As I said in the first place, the primary complaint is about the incorrect placement of the code and only the secondary complaint is about its bogus content. Anyway, what is this mythical glibc port that has no pthreads but is not hurd? And what in heaven could make a future port an argument about what to put in the 2.1 branch?!?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |