[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:08:41 +0300 |
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:52:58 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> On 08/27/13 11:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > What is your plan for the no-threads case?
>
> Use the gnulib pthreads module. It arranges for
> "#include <pthreads.h" to work on all platforms, with
> a no-op implementation for platforms that don't support
> pthreads. It's similar to what is in systhread.h now,
> except it doesn't impose an extra naming layer.
I'd like to be at liberty to implement the few threads calls needed
for Emacs in a way that doesn't use pthreads ported to Windows. Pth
doesn't seem to support Windows (and the latest release was in 2006,
not an encouraging sign).
Gnulib pthreads is OK for a no-op implementation, but that's not what
I have in mind.
Please make the changes to the current code keeping in mind a separate
non-pthread implementation for MS-Windows. (I'm okay with adding a
separate file, say w32thread.c, which would emulate pthread calls, if
that's the model we want to follow exclusively. Alternatively, we
could have a separate HAVE_PTHREADS and HAVE_W32THREADS branches of
the same few low-level functions.)
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, (continued)
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/28
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/28