libgcj and the NPTL posix threads implementation

Andrew Haley
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
 > available?

Interesting question.  I'm sure I can find something...  :-)


More information about the Java mailing list