Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wyllys Ingersoll <Wyllys.Ingersoll at Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>
>> Wouldn't the logical replacement for Pth be libpthread or Solaris threads?
>> Why bother even attempting to write a new thread library when we have
>> viable alternatives? The goal should be to eliminate the need for Pth
>> in the programs that use it if possible.
>>
>
> Please read the other mails from this thread. The Pth library does not
> implement
> cuncurrency, so it cannot be replaced by libpthread without running the risk
> of
> causing problems in the software that was implemented to call Pth.
>
I think you and Wyllys are in violent agreement. :-) The original
program has to be modified to use pthreads, rather than trying to hide
this underneath a Pth wrapper. That means that you recompile the
program, and possibly have to modify the source if it is not truly
concurrent safe.
- Garrett
