harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [vmi] thread library
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:28:11 GMT

On Feb 6, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Ronald Servant wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>> And why did you decide this was better than #1?
>>>> I didn't.  This could be considered step 1 towards doing #1.
>>>> Producing this patch was much quicker than trying to cease all  
>>>> use of
>>>> the port lib in the launcher.
>>>> Having said that, I'm not convinced that #1 is the real answer  
>>>> either.
>>> <snip>
>>> This is a good step forward.  It will relieve our immediate pain of
>>> colliding classlib/drlvm/VME threadlibs.  We can then take a  
>>> breather
>>> and think again about how to bootstrap the portlib for use by the
>>> launcher, but the overhead of this solution is ok for now.
>> This isn't about it not being a good step forward, but rather why not
>> examine the other solution. I always think modifying paths is a hack,
>> compared to deliberately loading the library, for example
> The first option was to avoid the port library dependency in the
> launcher code, that seems to be what Ron is proposing by  
> duplicating the
> required functions -- i.e. I think he is doing more of #1 than #2 <g>

Both #1 and #2 avoided the dep as far as figuring out where the lib  
was located, but I thought #1 then used it after it found it.  That  
seems cleaner, I guess.  I'm going to look at the patch and see how  
hard the alternative is.

> Whatever the number, it is IMO a reasonable solution to the main  
> problem
> of refactoring the access to the threadlib.  We can then refine the  
> way
> the launcher picks up the library if necessary.
> Tim

View raw message