[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!tag open_issue_libpthread open_issue_glibc]] IRC, #hurd, 2010-07-31 <tschwinge> Other question: how difficult is a NPTL port? Futexes and some kernel interfaces for scheduling stuff etc. -- what else? <youpi> actually NPTL doesn't _require_ futexes <youpi> it just requires low-level locks <youpi> Mmm, it seems to be so only in principle <youpi> I can see futex names here and there in the generic code <youpi> looks like Drepper isn't disciplined enough in that area either <tschwinge> (well, why would he...) <youpi> I'm not sure we really want to port NPTL <tschwinge> OK. <youpi> Drepper will keep finding things to add <youpi> while the interface between glibc and libpthread isn't increasing _so_ much <tschwinge> ... and even less so the interfavce that actual applications are using. <tschwinge> We'd need to evaluate which benefits NPTL would bring. --- # Resources * <http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/nptl-design.pdf> * <http://nptltracetool.sourceforge.net/> * <http://posixtest.sourceforge.net/>