(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 07:18:24PM +0100, Love wrote: > Thomas Valentino Crimi <tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > > > How deep are your pthreads patches? I'm considering getting coda to > > work on my FreeBSD Alpha machine, but my cursory attempt to get lwm to > > work failed (I also had to make numerous long -> time_t changes - is > > there any reason to go with longs?). Would you say it's easier to keep > > working with lwm or to try to merge ptrheads (#ifdef?) :) > > On arla, getting lwp to work was a 30m min work when we got the asmembly > resonebly put together. About the same here, although it probably was a bit more work as we rely heavily on some very obscure LWP semantics, and the non-preemption ofcourse. The fun part was implementing the locking/signalling code so that both preemptive and non-preemptive threads could use the same LWP primitives without problems. > Accully the pthread wrapper we have is a based on old code source that was > a wrapper around cthreads. And it anyone got that running on NT I would be > *very* happy. Someone should get a pthread compatible API for NT. Hmm, let's try Google... http://sourceware.cygnus.com/pthreads-win32/ Now that looks interesting, LGPL licenced. Maybe we should help these guys debugging it a bit, it sure beats hacking up our own preemptive lwp implementation for Win32. JanReceived on 1999-11-05 13:39:18