[M3devel] m3core/runtime/RTThread vs. m3core/thread/posix?

[Tony Hosking]

These divisions are largely historical, and so long as we preserve the  
required interfaces (see the language report) I don't see a problem  
with this plan.

On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:05, Jay wrote:

>
> Does anyone think the division between
> m3core/runtime/RTThread and m3core/thread/posix makes sense,
> is correct, is important, is at all "good", etc.?
>
>
> thread/posix is the only user of RTThread.
> RTThread was forked into platform-specific variants,
> but they are all nearly identical.
>
>
> I think this code belongs in m3core/thread/posix/ThreadPosix.m3
> or m3core/thread/posix/ThreadPosixC.c and have begun making it so.
>
>
> It is not much code, but it is multiplied out per-platform.
>
>
> There is already RTThreadC.c for many platforms, and
> introducing ThreadPosixC.c gives me a place to park related C
> code, in a less disruptive way (ie: ThreadPosixC.c and
> RTThreadC.c could be merged at some point, probably by deleting
> RTThreadC.c, once ThreadPosixC.c is complete).
>
>
> My /real/ agenda here is to move to "my rewritten drastically
> reduced headers" on other platforms (*_DARWIN, LINUXLIBC6, FreeBSD),
> which reduce porting effort, but I feel
> I can't do that unless user thread support is there,
> so I am "cleaning up" user thread support along a few lines
> (make it work on LINUXLIBC6, make it more portable).
>
>
> - Jay