On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> writes: > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 09:46:19PM -0500, Perry E.Metzger wrote: > >> IMHO, the amount of work involved in making glibc stably work with > >> scheduler activations is likely prohibitive. You'll be chasing > >> problems in the library forever. > > > > First we'll merge the patchset in upstream. Then we'll have problems for a > > while, similarly to those the GNU/Hurd port has fixing Glibc every time it > > breaks for them. > > > > But unlike GNU/Hurd, at some point upstream developers will install GNU/K*BSD > > themselves and maintain it for us. > > If you mean that the NetBSD folks are going to abandon their libc, > which is really nice to work with, I think you're mistaken. It is > unlikely that they're ever going to do that. ("They" includes me, > fyi.) Because of that, you'll have to maintain patches to do the > scheduler activations dance forever. SA is probably the most > complicated way to do threads that's out there, so this will not, in > the end, be particularly pleasant. > > If you had a list of functional deficiencies in the native libc, > though, it would probably be possible to re-implement them and fix > them in the native NetBSD libc. NetBSD would like to be maximally > compatible with third party apps, so we add stuff we need all the time > and are happy to do it. It would also likely be far less work to add a > few dozen new functions to libc than for you to re-implement the > userland SA framework and debug it. I can say, from experience, that this is entirely true. Having found a couple of fairly major deficienies (__cxx_atexit, [n]ftw), they're quite willing to work with folks to figure out ways to add support for just about anything that's sane, and discuss what is or is not sane, and why. :) -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' : `. `' `-
Attachment:
pgpoNBijJFT5p.pgp
Description: PGP signature