From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1d5d51400901251734o5e7e74a9v13d30e65e5fd27f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:28:57 -0200 Message-ID: From: Iruata Souza To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9port openbsd 4.4 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 89164f7a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 can't remember on 4.4, but 4.3 did run acme fine. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Russ Cox wrote: > The plan9port code depends on the operating system's pthreads > being real kernel-level threads, not a fake user-level simulation. > The user-level simulations are not good enough, because > on the x86 they cut corners and use the stack pointer > to locate the thread-local state. The Plan 9 threaded > programs manage their own stacks, making it impossible > for the user-space simulations to find their thread-local state. > > Most Linux distributions switched to real threads (i.e., dropped > LinuxThreads in favor of NPTL) around the time they switched > to the 2.6 kernel. FreeBSD switched in the FreeBSD 5 release. > > Last I had heard, OpenBSD was still plodding along with > user-level threads. Until they fix that, programs like acme > will not run. > > Russ > > -- iru