On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 07:18:24PM +0100, Love wrote:
> Thomas Valentino Crimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Jan
