They weren't approaching the same problem we are. They were just trying to make "conventional threads go fast"; I agree they probably wound up at the right place with 1:1 always (though weirdly, their IO model was part of what forced many OS vendors to *make* 1:1 go fast). If we weren't trying to make tasks a ubiquitous isolation (and IO multiplexing) concept, I'd probably agree with you here. But I think we are pursuing different goals.
I know I have lost this, but think I should at least make an historical correction. NPTL walked over linuxthreads in the day it was out. And that was in software that had been coded to use linuxthreads.
In the same way that NPTL != linuxthreads with m=n, so will be implementing a 1:1 mapping not be that trivial for us. In fact, it will probably be more work, as gcc didn't had to change any for the NPTL switch.
-Graydon
Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
