[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: support for multithread-safe libraries
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: support for multithread-safe libraries |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:09:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I have one minor quibble: the name "lock".
> That's a generic name, and "lock.h" is likely to collide with file
> names already in use. I just checked, and OpenBSD has a <sys/lock.h>;
> I wouldn't be surprised if someone else (unwisely) grabbed <lock.h>.
FreeBSD is going away from <sys/lock.h>, they renamed theirs to <sys/lockmgr.h>.
Cygwin has a dummy <sys/lock.h> that provides nothing useful. So far I
don't see anyone using a <lock.h> file; POSIX certainly won't add one
either. A few packages, far away from us, have a "lock.h"; they won't
collide with gnulib.
"lock.h" has the big benefit that it describes what it is, and resembles
glibc's <bits/libc-lock.h>.
> I have access to a Solaris 8 sparc host. Would it be worth my time to
> see what the problem is on that host? (I don't know what test-lock
> is, though.)
It's not worth it. The problem is that the scheduler in Solaris 7/8
is not "fair". It is fixed in Solaris 9.
The testing package is in http://www.haible.de/bruno/gnu/gnulib-lock.tar.gz .
If someone with access to FreeBSD 5 could test it - would be welcome!
> That was an impressive array of hosts you tested on, by the way. How
> do you get access to such a wide variety?
Compilefarm.sourceforge.net is an interesting resource.
Bruno
Re: support for multithread-safe libraries, Oskar Liljeblad, 2005/07/15
Re: support for multithread-safe libraries, Albert Chin, 2005/07/19
Re: support for multithread-safe libraries, Albert Chin, 2005/07/19