libgcj and the NPTL posix threads implementation
Mon Mar 1 21:48:00 GMT 2004
Jeff Sturm writes:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > If "we" == "Linux distribution vendors", then yes definitely. But
> > > I'd expect nearly everyone building and using their own gcj would
> > > want Anthony's patch.
> > I don't think so. I have worked fairly recently on systems that have
> > a working NPTL but gdb doesn't grok NPTL threads.
> Oh, yuck! I wasn't considering broken systems at all. (Does NTPL
> require TLS, or vice versa?
Ah, well. There are a lot of semi-broken GNU/Linux systems yout
there. Onwards and upwards...
> Both require kernel support, I understand...)
> > It should be simple to use a function pointer to switch _Jv_ThreadSelf
> > to different personalities, and the runtime cost would not be huge.
> What can you reliably test for, besides catching a signal if TLS isn't
Interesting question. I'm sure I can find something... :-)
More information about the Java