gmane.comp.lib.phil archive
382 archived articles, newest first (page 4 of 4). Latest articles →
Re: NPTL: pthread_condtimedwait hang or mutex_lock hang
Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:19:58 +0530Re: NPTL kernel == kernel with TLS?
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:22:23 -0500NPTL: pthread_condtimedwait hang or mutex_lock hang
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:27:56 +0530NPTL kernel == kernel with TLS?
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:05:51 +0800nptl configure failure
Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:18:50 -0800 (PST)Re: binutils version
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:51:59 +0800Re: binutils version
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:12:45 +0800Re: binutils version
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:03:17 -0800Re: binutils version
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:40:10 +0800Re: binutils version
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:02:30 -0500mozilla and nptl
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:55:34 +0800Re: binutils version
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:46:54 +0100binutils version
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:16:25 +0800Re: bits/stdio-lock.h
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:48:40 +1100bits/stdio-lock.h
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:21:53 +1100#define PTHREAD_BARRIER_SERIAL_THREAD EWOULDBLOCK
Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:01:27 +0100Mutex, Take 3 (for "dumb" futex)
Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:59:20 +0200"lock_futex"
Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:33:37 +0200Re: Trouble building current CVS libc on RH9
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:07:07 -0700Re: Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:36:22 -0700RE: Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:15:09 +1000Re: Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:34:43 +0100Re: Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:44:53 -0700Re: Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:31:13 +0100Bug with fcntl(n, F_SETOWN, getpid) with NPTL 0.34
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:10:29 +1000 (EST)PATCH - tst-cancelx7
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:45:54 +1000Extending nptl's libthread_db.so interfaces for locking
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:38:21 -0700Question about pthread_cond_broadcast
Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:25:59 -0700no more sources drops
Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:43:10 -0700Re: Bug in i386 pthread_once implementation
Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:49:51 -0700Bug in i386 pthread_once implementation
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:34:09 -0400Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:32:17 +0100Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:49:25 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:28:39 +0100Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:41:47 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:26:04 +0100Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:01:54 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:53:08 +0100Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:37:28 +0200Re: nptl 0.60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:35:34 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:21:23 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:20:39 +0200Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:12:18 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:10:26 -0700Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:47:52 +0100Re: condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:34:04 +0200condvar performance in .59 vs .60
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC)Re: nptl 0.60
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:37:20 +0200RE: Missing definition of cpu_set_t
Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:56:30 +0800Missing definition of cpu_set_t
Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:58:10 +1000NPTL and LinuxThread Library
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:16:50 +0800Re: Problem with pthread_con
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:09:19 +0200Re: nptl 0.60
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:06:29 +0200Re: process name setting
Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:34:54 -0700Re: Problem with pthread_con
Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:32:50 -0700nptl 0.60
Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:29:59 -0700nptl 0.59
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:28:25 -0700process name setting
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:41:54 -0700 (PDT)Re: Problem with pthread_con
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:08:36 +0200Problem with pthread_con
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:12:55 +0200porting code based on linuxthreads to NPTL?
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:50:44 -0400nptl 0.58
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 01:10:30 -0700Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:37:47 +0100Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:12:43 +0200 (CEST)Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:04:17 +0100Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:29:35 +0200 (CEST)Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:26:30 -0400Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:29:56 +0200 (CEST)Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:27:53 -0400Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:17:02 +0200 (CEST)Re: Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:37:13 +0100Success with new futex code from 2.6.0-test5
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:20:06 -0400Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:38:17 -0400FWD: pthread_once segfaults in qt apps with nptl 0.57
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:24:41 +0200 (CEST)RE: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:27:57 -0700Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:10:56 -0400Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:21:45 -0400Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:16:49 +0200 (CEST)Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:43:29 -0400Re: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 03:56:42 -0400RE: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:48:05 +0200 (CEST)RE: Poor thread performance on Linux vs. Solaris
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:38:57 +0800
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.