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
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.