[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACCP0GpVO+EOZiCqwoQhrOWypHV-h4h2v0O5CnsJNuewzfwMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:20:33 +0530
From: Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@...rmmq.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: What would make musl 1.2?
Do they use a third party support lib?
If it's possible to support use cases with a third party lib, then I'm less
concerned - provided that that lib also works with musl. Given the nature
of ucontext, that may not be so. A musl native solution would be optimal
for performance - and performance is a common reason for going down this
route. It allows for far greater scale in certain server designs then
either thread-per-connection or a thread-pool can do.
Out of interest, how many packages are in the OpenBSD repository? How does
it compare to Debian's, say? For me, Debian's repo contents is a yardstick
of what Linux + Musl could be expected to work with.
On 13 February 2015 at 15:08, Anthony J. Bentley <anthony@...het.us> wrote:
> Raphael Cohn writes:
> > Is there any possibility of adding in the ucontext.h functions? I know
> > they're deprecated, but they're still widely used - particularly by go
> for
> > goroutines, IIRC.
>
> It's worth mentioning that OpenBSD doesn't have ucontext, so given the
> size of its package repository (which also contains Go), ucontext can't
> be *that* widely used.
>
> --
> Anthony J. Bentley
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
