Hi all,
here is the updated version of my proposal for re-implementing network
in hurd. There are changes, since hurd-net doesn't exist any more. It is
replaced by having more stuff in some layers. People could think that
this breaks a little bit the usual layer design, but I will try to
explain a
"R. A. Conrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
confirm 201702___Hurd-devel-readers mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/hurd-devel-readersDo you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
Hello,
While trying to compile abiword, and so gnome-vfs, on GNU/Hurd, I've
seen that it uses POSIX semaphore, that we don't implement yet.
So, I've done an implementation of POSIX semaphores using a pthread_mutex
and a pthread_cond. I didn't test it yet, but it compiles, and I'm pretty
confiden
I have a question about the best way to use Mach ports.
To communicate between two translators, is it better to have one
bi-directional port, or to have two mono-directional ports ? What are
the advantages/issues of these both ways ? Which ones allows (in theory)
the highest rate of data transfert
> To communicate between two translators, is it better to have one
> bi-directional port, or to have two mono-directional ports ? What are
> the advantages/issues of these both ways ? Which ones allows (in theory)
> the highest rate of data transfert ?
> I think two ports can be better (it is for n
--- Ga�l Le Mignot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While trying to compile abiword, and so gnome-vfs, on GNU/Hurd, I've
> seen that it uses POSIX semaphore, that we don't implement yet.>
> So, I've done an implementation of POSIX semaphores using a pthread_mutex
> and a pthread_con
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:57:08 -0800 (PST), tu as dit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> While trying to compile abiword, and so gnome-vfs, on GNU/Hurd, I've
>> seen that it uses POSIX semaphore, that we don't implement yet.>
>> So, I've done an implementation of POSIX semaphores using a pthread_mutex
>> and
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:10:24 +0100, tu as dit :
>>> if (pshared)
>>> return -1;
>> If you wanted to be consistant with LinuxThreads this should be
>> if (pshared)
>> {
>> errno = ENOSYS;
>> return -1;
>> }
> I know we should do that, but
ooops ! I forgot to finish my sentence. What I wa
--- Ga�l Le Mignot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:10:24 +0100, tu as dit :
> >>> if (pshared)
> >>> return -1;
>
> >> If you wanted to be consistant with LinuxThreads this should be
> >> if (pshared)
> >> {
> >> errno = ENOSYS;
> >> return -1;
> >> }
>
> > I know
