[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thread deficiencies

> There was some disagreement about this, in particular because it might
> cause heartburn for certain Linux emulators (i.e., SCO, NetBSD, etc.).

BSD has a complete working clone clone. 

> This might have been partially addressed by the proposal that we specify
> clone() with a specific (limited) flags combination (to be determined
> later).

we would need to specify

	CSIGNAL			-	thread exit signal
	CLONE_VM		-	share vm
	CLONE_FS		-	share umask/chdir etc
	CLONE_FILES		-	share file handles
	CLONE_SIGHAND		-	share signal actions

We could avoid

CLONE_PID - kernel only
CLONE_PTRACE - debugging specific
CLONE_VFORK - vfork() internals. Vfork is a whole can of portability worms
on its own, but vfork() is the entrypoint.

Maybe CLONE_PARENT is used to share the parent of the creating thread (2.3.x 
				only) its really there for threadded apps.

>      (2) Put pthreads in an `annex' to the spec, with descriptions of how
> 	 it differs from POSIX.4 (i.e., doesn't work).
> For the short term, yes.  There was however a strong feeling that a
> number of applications *will* want to use POSIX.4, and so saying that
> such apps couldn't be LSB compliant might not necessarily be the right
> thing either.  


Reply to: