From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ttxqf-0004uj-2h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:57:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtxAw-0003A3-EV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:14:53 -0500 Received: from speedy.comstyle.com ([2001:470:1d:8c::2]:6949 helo=mail.comstyle.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ttx3e-0001xW-Sd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:07:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:07:12 -0500 From: Brad Smith Message-ID: <20130112090711.GB16980@rox.home.comstyle.com> References: <50F055D8.7040505@redhat.com> <50F058E3.4070905@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50F058E3.4070905@web.de> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] getting rid of coroutine-gthread? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andreas F?rber Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel , Peter Maydell On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 07:24:35PM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote: > 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. That is to skip over testing for the ucontext implementation. There was a build issue with the sigaltstack implementation but it was fixed relatively recently. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.