On 12/04/2013 3:01 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 1:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 11/04/2013 11:02 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 2:39 PM, David Holmes wrote:
So what did you mean about pthread_semaphore (what is that anyway?) ??
Never mind, pthread condition variables.
Ah I see.
I really, really, really don't like seeing three versions of this class :(
Can't BSD and Linux at least share a POSIX version? (And I wonder if we can
actually mix-n-match UI threads on Solaris with POSIX semaphores on Solaris?)
I don't like it either, our OS code isn't really helpful when it comes do reusing
things :) Not sure how I would layout things to make them only available on BSD (Not
Mac) and Linux. I guess os_posix.hpp with lots of #ifdefs, but I'm not sure I"m
feeling that happy about that.
Why would the os_posix version need a lot of ifdefs?
Well, I guess we would need:
(in ifdef pseudo language)
#ifdef (LINUX || (BSD && !APPLE))
…
#endif
But if it isn't "posix" then we won't be building os_posix - right?
The second interesting problem this will get us into is that sem_t is not declared in
this context. Where do we put the #include <semaphore.h>? Impossible in
os_posix.hpp since it is included in the middle of a class definition. I could put it
in os.hpp in the #ifdef path that does the jvm_platform.h includes, not sure if that
is very pretty either.
Semaphores are already used by the signal handler thread - semaphore.h
is included in os_linux.cpp etc, so why would os_posix be any different ?
But couldn't we just have a Semaphore.h/cpp with any needed ifdefs?
Do we really have four versions:
- linux (posix)
- BSD (posix)
- Solaris
- Mac (different to BSD?)
3:
1) linux & bsd uses the sem_ interface
2) solaris uses the sema_ interface
3) mac uses the semaphore_ interface
Okay but if mac is BSD why can't we use bsd ie posix interface instead
of the mach semaphore_ ?
BTW I like the idea of using the semaphore, we're just haggling on the
details. ;-)
Thanks,
David
/R
??
David
-----
