Re: pthread and perfly
Phil Keslin (philk++at++cthulhu.engr.sgi.com)
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:25:24 -0800
Brian Corrie wrote:
> This conversation is very interesting to some of us, so please do keep it
> public. It seems to me that moving Performer to pthreads is not necessarily
> the solution that we want anyway (as Phil states, it would require many
> fundamental changes in many things). What would be REALLY nice is to have
> versions of pthreads/sproc/multiprocessing that do not break each other. Does
> SGI have any plans on fixing this problem???? We are in the same situation as
> Jason - we are using the CAVE libraries (which are Performer based), a package
> which is sproc based, and a package which is pthread based. Pthreads is
> arguably the "way ahead" for multi-processing (especially portable
> multi-processing), but doesn't work with either sproc or shared arenas. I see
> that as a bit of a fundamental problem, no? Is there a techical problem why
> they can not co-exist???
>
> Any comments on whether SGI plans on fixing this would be GREATLY
> appreciated... 8-)
"Fixing" this would require a fundamental change in the way at least the
C library works for multi-threaded applications and the way
multi-threaded applications are scheduled by the kernel. This
incompatibility won't be fixed.
- Phil
--
Phil Keslin <philk++at++engr.sgi.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Tue Dec 15 1998 - 15:25:29 PST