[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We follow POSIX PSE51 for reasons of simplicity, coherence, programmer
> familiarity, and because there is a real standard, not a creature of
> any company. POSIX is specified so that implementation extensions can
> be accomodated. For example, to reserve a RTLinux only processor in
> an SMP system, we have
> pthread_kill(pthread_linuxthread(),RTL_SIG_SUSPEND_LINUX );
> Of course, there is no signal RTL_SIG_SUSPEND_LINUX in the
> POSIX specifications and this code will fail on Chorus -- but our
> goal is to make RTLinux programming easy, not to make RTLinux as slow
> and clumsy as Chorus. And the POSIX standard is designed to allow for
> such extensions.
In any case it remains not portable. Standards are a good things and
often people have to adhere to them, but IMHO saying that POSIX is
simple is wrong.
> As I have pointed out before, the purpose of Steve Papacharalambous'
> POSIX package is very much different from the purpose of our PSE51
> API -- even though we draw from the same base spec. Steve's package
> is great for people who want to port code from Chorus or Lynx or
> something to RTLinux. But RTLinux is based on fundamentally
> different design than those systems and we are trying to make a
> convenient API for that design. So it misses the point to critique
> Steve's package for lack of speed/determinism ....
Apart from the fact that Steve's package cannot run with RTL, but only
with RTAI, from my limited tests experience with Steve's POSIX the above
seems a quite unfair statement.
In fact thank to Steve's package RTAI has POSIX, for those that needs
and wants to use it, with as much determinism as RTL, along with
"simplicity, coherence, programmer familiarity", to say the least.
Ciao, Paolo.
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
