NTPL & pthreads locks

Mike Hearn m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com
Tue Apr 8 07:37:11 CDT 2003

It's not just portability to other forms of unix, it's portability to
older versions of glibc as well - some Wine users are using for instance
Xandros which is based on pretty old components now, any
reimplementation of Wine threading would have to take that into account.

On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 07:11, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> Alexandre,
> If I understand correctly, we currently implement the pthreads locks
> on top on Wine locks because the standard pthreads locks are not powerful
> enough to support all Win32 locking primitives. Integrating these locks
> is necessary for integrating Wine with the pthreads Universe.
> Now, given the new NTPL work, would it be possible/feasible/desirable
> to implement the Win32 locks on top of NTPL primitives (such as futexes)?
> At the very least it makes the setup a lot more intuitive, and less likely
> to break. If we are to follow this path, there are portability problems.
> But do we support this sort of libc integration of Solaris and *BSD? And it
> seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard for these systems to provide
> something that would allow us to implement all Win32 locking primitives,
> and the end result would be a lot less brittle.
Mike Hearn <m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com>
QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

More information about the wine-devel mailing list