blob: 9ff5fb51d23d14e639acad033f3816f18211aea9 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
|
[[!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/>
|
