[SDL] Solaris nitpicks

Mattias Engdegård f91-men at nada.kth.se
Fri Aug 31 12:23:01 PDT 2001

Drazen Kacar <dave at arsdigita.com> wrote:
>1. You are checking for the number of processors phisically present.
>   The above sysconf() call would check for the number of processors which
>   are on-line, ie. the number of processors that any application can
>   actually use.

right you are, I'll change it to use the sysconf (not that it is likely
to matter in practice)

(I have yet to find any reliable docs for the kstats. I suppose I'll have
to glean at the kernel sources)

>Most of the time, but then the effect you are getting is as if you're
>using 1:1 library with some overhead, so I'd like to get rid of the

but when is the normal n:m thread implementation a problem? I've found
bugs in it but nothing related to that

>Is it perhaps bugid 4288299 (Recursive mutexes are not properly released)?
>That one has been fixed for Solaris 7 and 8 and patches are available.

this is a policy problem - ideally SDL should not assume any particular
OS version number (or patchlevel, same thing) as long as there is
a reasonable workaround for bugs in the environment. I'm not sure to
what extent the borken recursive mutexen affect SDL's internals
(event locks etc)

(I wouldn't mind leaving the recursiveness of SDL's mutexen unspecified
for performance reasons)

More information about the SDL mailing list