Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:20:33 +0530 From: Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@...rmmq.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: What would make musl 1.2? Do they use a third party support lib? If it's possible to support use cases with a third party lib, then I'm less concerned - provided that that lib also works with musl. Given the nature of ucontext, that may not be so. A musl native solution would be optimal for performance - and performance is a common reason for going down this route. It allows for far greater scale in certain server designs then either thread-per-connection or a thread-pool can do. Out of interest, how many packages are in the OpenBSD repository? How does it compare to Debian's, say? For me, Debian's repo contents is a yardstick of what Linux + Musl could be expected to work with. On 13 February 2015 at 15:08, Anthony J. Bentley <anthony@...het.us> wrote: > Raphael Cohn writes: > > Is there any possibility of adding in the ucontext.h functions? I know > > they're deprecated, but they're still widely used - particularly by go > for > > goroutines, IIRC. > > It's worth mentioning that OpenBSD doesn't have ucontext, so given the > size of its package repository (which also contains Go), ucontext can't > be *that* widely used. > > -- > Anthony J. Bentley > Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.