On 20/04/17 07:00, Michael Schnell wrote:
Again (AFAIK) NPTL had not been introduce to make threads "lighter" but to allow for threads behaving in a decently POSIX compatible way (e.g. the threads of a process getting only a common share of time slices).
In any event, processes on unix are *defined* as owning resources- memory, handles and so on- while threads only manage control flow. I believe that MS also have "fibers" which are non-preemptive threads.
If somebody wants to define a new kind of thread, something even lighter-weight, they're going to need a new name: inverting well-accepted precedence is not an option.
-- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
