cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread/thread thr_attr_init.cthr_init.c thr_private.h thr_stack.c

[Scott Long]

Maxime Henrion wrote:

> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> 
>>Maxime Henrion wrote this message on Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 23:49 +0100:
>>
>>>I entirely understand this and when I asked you why you weren't using
>>>pthread_attr_setstacksize() it was out of curiosity.  Anyways, I'm
>>>surprised there's still an argument about this.  __FreeBSD_version bumps
>>>are cheap, and if it can help reduce the maintainance burden of a port,
>>>I'm all for it.
>>
>>My point behind not doing a version bump is that if there is knowledge
>>that the program needs a large/small stack, then it should ALWAYS request
>>the stack size so that it is truely portable to all platforms.. instead
>>of trying to berate OS xyz into increasing their default stack size...
>>or end up breaking because this program tried to create 5000 threads, but
>>failed because each stack took up 1MB and required 5GB of ram on a 32bit
>>system....
> 
> 
> I entirely agree with you but we can't blame this on the ports
> maintainers.  If they want to go ahead, patch Gstreamer so that it
> requests reasonably sized stacks, and send the patch back to the
> vendors, that's great, but it seems that at least in the case of
> Gstreamer, it's hard to do due to how the application is designed.  So
> we can't just refuse to bump __FreeBSD_version because Gstreamer has
> problems, especially considering how cheap a __FreeBSD_version bump is.
> 
> 
>>If the patch is applicable before the default change, then it is applicable
>>after, and if the patch is applicable after the default change, it was
>>applicable before...
> 
> 
> I also agree here. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Maxime

Oh, just bump the version already.  Far too much effort is being spent 
on this.  The ports guys have a valid need here.

Scott