Re: Cthread2Pthread

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:13:20AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Roland McGrath <roland@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > We still need a way to keep track of what they are, and the existing
> > > mechanism is basically the only way.  We can either implement it with
> > > a wrapper around pthread conditions, or exted pthread conditions.  The
> > > latter seems better.
> > 
> > Or, as I suggested, all the users (all four of them) of this interface
> > could just use the standard interface instead, i.e. signal several conds.
> 
> Right, and like I said, they need a way to keep track of which
> conditions they need to signal.  They will probably hold them on a
> linked list, and call one function that signals the lot.  Oh wait!
> That's what we have now!
> 
> So the question is only whether this is to be layered on top of
> pthreads, or an extension of pthreads.

Roland was talking about hard coding the knowledge into the code.

Ie, a very simple condition_signal (cond1); condition_signal (cond2);
instead some foobar_signal(cond1) which somehow dynamically works out what
conditions are implied by cond1.

I like the nice modularity and runtime flexibility that implied conditions
give you, but I see Roland's point: We don't really need it in our code.

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/