Mention cthread vs. pthread problem in language bindings GSoC task

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/community/gsoc/project_ideas/language_bindings.mdwn b/community/gsoc/project_ideas/language_bindings.mdwn
index 3376754c..51defe54 100644
--- a/community/gsoc/project_ideas/language_bindings.mdwn
+++ b/community/gsoc/project_ideas/language_bindings.mdwn
@@ -40,6 +40,17 @@ even create native stubs directly from the interface definitions. The
 [[lisp_bindings_created_by_Flavio_Cruz|flaviocruz]] in last year's GSoC mostly
 use the latter approach, and can serve as a good example.
 
+There is another possible reason for preferring lower-level bindings:
+Presently, the Hurd server libraries use the cthreads threading library, which
+predates the pthread standard prevalent today. There is a pthread library for
+the Hurd as well, but it's not possible to use both cthreads and pthreads in
+the same executable. Thus, until
+[[porting_the_Hurd_libraries_to_pthreads|community/gsoc/project_ideas/pthreads]]
+is finished, implementing bindings for any language that uses pthreads (in the
+runtime environment or the actual programs) is only possible when not using the
+standard Hurd server libraries at all -- i.e. when binding at MIG stub level or
+interface definition level.
+
 The task is to create easy to use Hurd bindings for a language of the student's
 choice, and some example servers to prove that it works well in practice. This
 project will require gaining a very good understanding of the various Hurd