harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vmi] thread library
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:20:51 GMT
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>

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

Mime
View raw message