From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:10:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] fork/exec removal series
Message-ID: <4711DD20.8070600@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <20071014072849.GD1198@artemis.corp>

Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On dim, oct 14, 2007 at 07:17:51 +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On dim, oct 14, 2007 at 07:12:39 +0000, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>>   The trivial way is to add a __thread keyword to make them TLS
>>> variables, though, it's not really a step in the direction of
>>> portability, and last time I looked at it, mingw didn't had TLS support,
>>> not sure if msys has. Though, if Msys has, it's worth using, and we
>>   Okay forget it, mingw and msys are one and the same *g*.
>>   So well, maybe threading isn't such a so great idea :/
> 
>   And again last time I checked it was still a mingw 3.x in debian, now
> that it's 4.2.1 it seems to support __thread (but not
> __declspec(thread)) and their changelog seems to confirm that fact [0].
> 
>   So the question holds again, do we require pthread-using targets to
> support TLS ? It feels sane and right to me, but …
> 

To me it's a sane place to start. As time goes by and people on non-TLS
capable systems come along that need the functionality (or the speedup;
fork() is expensive on some systems), they can probably implement it
themselves or at least give voice to the fact that they need it.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231