Jim Kingdon wrote: > At the recent open source database summit[1], I asked the developers > there whether people had problems with threads on Linux. > > The answer I got was that the semantic differences from POSIX weren't > really a problem, but they really, really wanted better debugging.
>From my own experience writing a threaded app that runs under both Linux and Solaris, that's exactly right. > Monty (of MySQL) also suggested a few additions to our libpthread.txt > file: the threads code in libc usurps SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2, and dumping > core only affects a thread, not the whole process. > <PARA> > The semantics of system calls do not follow the pthread behavior. This is > the result of using clone() instead of lightweight processes. A complete list > of differences is not yet available, so applications are discouraged from > using pthreads. > </PARA> That's a bit harsh. Why should the LSB discourage apps from using pthreads? Is it because it's too hard to list the things that must be obeyed to have a pthread app that is portable to both Linux and other OS's? I must be missing something. Is it just that I'm thinking at the source-code level, not at the installing-binary-packages level? - Dan
