Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
- To: Robert Millan <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Glibc-based Debian GNU/KNetBSD
- From: Perry E.Metzger <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:56:04 -0500
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20031201122356.GB1237@aragorn> (Robert Millan's message of "Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:23:56 +0100")
- References: <20031119202813.GA6625@khazad.dyndns.org> <20031129144515.GA11147@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20031129184012.GC19507@quic.net> <20031130021949.GA7065@lightbearer.com> <email@example.com> <20031201122356.GB1237@aragorn>
Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
>> Although it is still not as stable as we'd like, the benchmarks of the
>> native threads on NetBSD are pretty damn impressive. I'd say that not
>> using the native threads would be a tremendous waste...
> When NPTL is ported,
I assume you mean the Netscape stuff? It is running on top of our
libc's pthreads right now in NetBSD. The problem is you don't HAVE our
pthreads if you go to glibc.
> it'll be no difference. The "native" word is meaningless here.
I see you haven't studied the scheduler activations framework.
The scheduler activations infrastructure is VERY complicated. It took
a couple of years to write and has taken us nearly a year to get the
bugs shaken out of it, using all native tools.
You would be much better off just specifying what was missing from the
native libc so that it could be added -- that, at least, is a
Perry E. Metzger email@example.com