Thanks Christos, Martin and SODA for these advices and documents!
I will start to get familiar with freebsd designs and try to contribute as
much
as possible to netbsd community.
2016-05-19 10:36 GMT-07:00 Christos Zoulas :
> On May 18, 3:40pm, charles.cui1...@gmail.com (Charles Cui) wrote:
> --
Thanks Martin and Soda!
How about other functions? Does it make sense to follow POSIX standard
to implement the missing functions in netbsd?
2016-05-18 19:00 GMT-07:00 SODA Noriyuki :
> > On Thu, 19 May 2016 01:13:09 +0200,
> Martin Husemann said:
>
> > int pthread_barrierattr_setpshar
On May 18, 3:40pm, charles.cui1...@gmail.com (Charles Cui) wrote:
-- Subject: pthread library related
| Hi guys,
|
|
|I spent some time on pthread libraries in netbsd which is a big part in
| my project, and have some questions to ask.
| Taking pthread_barrierattr_getpshared, pthread_barrie
On May 19, 11:00am, s...@yuruyuru.net (SODA Noriyuki) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: pthread library related
| > On Thu, 19 May 2016 01:13:09 +0200,
| Martin Husemann said:
|
| > int pthread_barrierattr_setpshared(pthread_barrierattr_t *attr,
| >int pshared)
| > {
| > return EINVAL
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:06:19PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
> Yes.
> Easiest way is to call a locking system call always, in the case of
> PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED.
Oh, didn't think of that - nice, and only hits the stupid shared case
(performance wise).
Martin
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 10:36:57 +0200,
Martin Husemann said:
>> Adding real implementation (instead of the ENOSYS stub) is desired,
>> of course...
> In this case: is it even possible in a portable way for all of our
> architectures?
Yes.
Easiest way is to call a locking system call
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:49:07PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
> Adding real implementation (instead of the ENOSYS stub) is desired,
> of course...
In this case: is it even possible in a portable way for all of our
architectures?
Martin
