From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48684) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtjHd-0000jx-SA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:24:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtjHc-0006D9-92 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:24:49 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:60536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtjHb-0006Bn-W0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:24:48 -0500 Message-ID: <50F058E3.4070905@web.de> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:24:35 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] getting rid of coroutine-gthread? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel , Brad Am 11.01.2013 19:11, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Brad and Peter, > > as far as I know OpenBSD and Linux/ARM were the main users of > coroutine-gthread. Do you think we could dump it and rely on > coroutine-sigaltstack only? The differences in signal handling of the > gthread implementation always worried me. > > What versions of OpenBSD would we have to drop support for? Is that > acceptable to you? No, I believe there is explicit code in configure to force the GThread implementation on Mac OS X. Andreas