Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the weekQuotes of the weekPosted Jan 25, 2013 12:57 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)Parent article: Quotes of the week
Had to read Lennart's full answer to get the irony...
(Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Jan 25, 2013 14:57 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Still, his point is accurate.
(Though it does say something about the continuing awful documentation for glibc that glibc already *had* an interface -- heck, a whole library, libanl -- for doing just what the proposal suggested, if in an inconvenient way; but because the thing's existence was only documented in a random PDF on Uli's homepage, next to nobody knew it was there...)
Quotes of the week Posted Feb 13, 2013 14:39 UTC (Wed) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]
Well, threads – particularily, POSIX threads – are *evil*.
Quotes of the week Posted Feb 15, 2013 10:05 UTC (Fri) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> Well, threads – particularily, POSIX threads – are *evil*.
And it's not even a joke. They *are* evil. I wish the kernel supported some other kind of parallelism as well (coroutines, maybe?) that doesn't have to emulated using threads.
Quotes of the week Posted Feb 15, 2013 10:33 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Kernel? WTF? Why kernel should know or even care? Kernel runs two (or more) processes with a shared address space, what happens inside of these two processes is entirely up to userspace. Even clone(2) syscall which creates such processes does not know anything about threads: it just returns different return values in different processes but it does not change %xSP, it does not allocate new stack, etc. Sorry, but you are barking on the wrong tree.
|
|||||||||||||