[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:05:01 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 |
On 08/27/13 09:08, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> . Why is systhread.c on a separate file? Wouldn't it be better to
> have this code in thread.c instead? It's not like thread.c can be
> compiled in without also compiling systhread.c, right?
Good point, and more generally, we should redo the code
so that there's not a separate sys_* level above a pthread_ level,
as the extra level's complexity isn't buying us anything.
I'll work on a patch along those lines.
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, (continued)
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Juanma Barranquero, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27