On 2014-03-31 16:31, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>On 2014-03-31 16:15, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>>bcc: rtems-users
>>
>>Sebastian,
>>
>>Any thought on whether we can resolve this problem of threads holding
>>resources by way of something similar to the discussion about solving
>>the "strict order mutex" / nested mutex acquire bug
>>https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2124
>
>
>No, I think this PR2124 is an entirely different issue.
>
>You have POSIX cleanup handler, POSIX key destructors and thread termination
>user extensions to deal with asynchronous thread deletion. I think we
>should enable POSIX cleanup handlers for all RTEMS configurations.
>
What do we need the cleanup handler to deal with when the user does
not enable posix?
Its just one pointer in Thread_Control and a simple list iterate for the
handler invocation.
It starts to feel like we need to re-evaluate the impact on
applications if we just enable posix all the time in RTEMS.
Before we do this we should implement linker set base initialization (like
Linux, eCos and BSD):
https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1593
Search also for rtemsrosets in the linker command files. Used in the new
network stack (libbsd).
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
