The intent of my statement was, if the LinuxThreads interface could be
_exactly_ like any one of UNIXes, I'd prefer it be Solaris. If you say,
LinuxThreads should implement the latest POSIX draft, that's excellent.
But then, currently, it doesn't.
2. Point taken, but I think multithreaded debugging is important enough
to justify the work of creating an integrated solution. I'm not the
only person who thinks that, surely?
Matt Benjamin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk [SMTP:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:22 PM
> To: MBenjamin@comshare.com
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: your mail
>
> > Let me second Perry in saying, the userspace developer community
> needs a
> > somebody-compatible (and I, too, would prefer Solaris-compatible)
> > libpthread implementation.
>
> Actually the someone compatible is POSIX who defined the interface.
>
> > I have been told by some ISVs (eg, Kubl, Software AG) that they have
> > Linux ports of multithreaded programs, but the lack of a
> multithreaded
> > debugger has made it harder to be confident in the ports. Kubl
> won't
>
> News to me. You breakpoint on the thread create and attach a gdb to
> whichever
> threads you are interested in. Not perfect but works quite nicely.
> I've been
> debugging serveral things that way.
>
> Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu