Re: libpthread vs libthr.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 02:20:44AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:12:47 +0200
> Nikolay Pavlov <quetzal_at_zone3000.net> wrote:
> > Hi. In this post i am not trying to raise a discussion about teoretical
> > advantages of some special threading model, but still i would like to
> > figure out why libthr in it current state is not our default posix 
> > thread library and could it be so in time of 7-STABLE?
> 
> 	I don't agree.  Do test, run by again, do test.
> 
> 	I read a discussion about libpthread vs libthr, so I tested on
> 	my environments(7-current SMP and 6-stable UP).  My result is
> 	NOT YET, and I resurrected to libpthread environment.
> 
> 	1. libthr is not enough mature.
> 	   At this time, libpthread's pthread API support > libthr's
> 	   pthread API support.  So libthr lacks of compatibility with
> 	   libpthread.  It is not good.

Which applications does this effect?  I'm not aware of any (see
below).

> 	2. Not PTHREAD_CFLAGS/PTHREAD_LIBS clean
> 	   At this time, tinderbox doesn't test PTHREAD_CFLAGS/
> 	   PTHREAD_LIBS clean.  We have need to check PTHREAD_CFLAGS/
> 	   PTHREAD_LIBS clean on all ports.

The existence of libmap makes this objection irrelevant.  Also,
sparc64 uses libthr by default and I'm not aware of any resulting port
build problems.  So apparently any missing API features are not widely
used, or are successfully worked around.  Can you provide evidence to
the contrary?

> 	3. Is libthr environments useful?
> 	   I don't think.  Yes, I think that some applications like mysql
> 	   are useful.  However, in all FreeBSD environment system, by 1
> 	   and 2, libthr is not useful.

Maybe you don't care that libpthread's performance is terrible and
e.g. this makes FreeBSD look bad on benchmarks, both published and
when a user evaluates FreeBSD against other systems to decide whether
or not to use it on their workloads - but surely most people do.

Kris