Jason Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 06:42:56AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:35:17AM -0800, Jason Evans wrote:
> >
> > The problem with cancellation points, libc and linuxthreads has been
> > that you need to wade through libc and replace instances of, for
> > example, write() with either _write() or _libc_write() in order to
> > avoid propagating cancellation points where they don't belong.
>
> Now I understand why you claimed that making cancellation work is a lot of
> work. Since that isn't currently done, do you think it would be better to
> leave broken cancellation in the LinuxThreads port, or to take it out? As
> things stand right now, "broken" means:
>
> 1) Not all mandatory cancellation points are implemented.
> 2) Some functions may act as cancellation points, even though they
> shouldn't.
>
> We can fix 1) with some symbol munging, but 2) is much more difficult, as
> you point out.
Have you looked at what NetBSD did with namespace? See:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/basesrc/lib/libc/include/namespace.h?rev=1.42&cvsroot=netbsd
Dan Eischen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
