open_issues/nptl.mdwn


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

[[!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.