NGPT 1.0.0 port to freebsd
Arun Sharma
http://www.sharma-home.net/~adsharma/projects/freebsd/ngpt-1.0.0-freebsd.tar.gz
Notes:
- The project has gotten more Linux specific since the last port (0.9.4)
There are a lot of ugly hacks that need cleanup.
- Please commit 27489 to help this port
- There were many deviations from the freebsd pthread.h (specifically
the omission of "const" int vs size_t etc)
- The main point of this port is to have a reasonable native freebsd
pthread implementation till the scheduler activations stuff is ready.
- Java heads: does this help to pass the JCK ? Is that the main reason
we can't have a binary FreeBSD JDK distribution ? I've read -java for
several months now and I still can't find the answer.
To test the above port:
- make test_pthread; ./test_pthread
- You may want to turn off debugging in pth_p.h
- Tested only on a UP machine (my laptop) so far. Needs SMP testing.
The earliest I can do it is this weekend.
Disclaimer:
- I've mainly done the "monkey work" of fixing compile errors and making
sure that the test program works. Haven't had a chance to look at the
implementation specifics yet. I didn't like some design decisions in
0.9.4.
- Someone here had a makecontext() patch. I think commiting it would
surely help. The way GNU pth does context creation is really
inefficient, in order to be portable (read the pth paper).
-Arun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Nate Williams
is at the top of this, rather than requiring the folks to go to a URL. ]
> - The main point of this port is to have a reasonable native freebsd
> pthread implementation till the scheduler activations stuff is ready.
With the current license, this won't be installed as part of the base
kernel. (GPL and/or LGPL)
> - Java heads: does this help to pass the JCK ?
Nope. I suspect we could pass the JCK/TCK today, but we haven't run the
tests yet due to legal reasons.
> Is that the main reason
> we can't have a binary FreeBSD JDK distribution ? I've read -java for
> several months now and I still can't find the answer.
It's been answered time and time again over the past months, so you must
not be paying attention. The binary distribution hasn't been created
because we don't have a legal license to do so (yet). However, there is
(and has been) ongoing work with Sun to get something in place. The
BSDi->WindRiver acquisition did *NOT* help things, as it forced us to
start over from scratch as a number of folks at WindRiver who were
aiding the Java team are no longer involved (as they were laid off).
In summary, a Java binary distribution of JDK1.2.2 will come out *very
soon* after a usable license with Sun has been signed. Hopefully, we'll
have a JDK1.3 binary distribution soon after, as Greg Lewis has made
alot of progress on it and has it limping along right now.
Nate
Arun Sharma
> With the current license, this won't be installed as part of the base
> kernel. (GPL and/or LGPL)
I understand it'll continue to be a port. Am I hearing that it is
unacceptable even as a temporary solution because of the license ?
> It's been answered time and time again over the past months, so you must
> not be paying attention. The binary distribution hasn't been created
> because we don't have a legal license to do so (yet).
Yes, I've been reading that for a long time now, but it (what Sun is
doing) doesn't make any sense to me. Are Sun's reasons
(a) Technical ? Passing of JCK etc ?
(b) Political ? Yet another competitor to Solaris ?
>From your posting it appears that it's technical (not passing JCK), as
well as political (not getting the license to run JCK). What is their
answer reg: blackdown.org doing the same ?
May be getting Zdnet to publish an article on this is the right way to
go ? The bug parades and votes didn't seem to help much.
> In summary, a Java binary distribution of JDK1.2.2 will come out *very
> soon* after a usable license with Sun has been signed. Hopefully, we'll
> have a JDK1.3 binary distribution soon after, as Greg Lewis has made
> alot of progress on it and has it limping along right now.
That's good to hear. Eagerly awaiting the news.
-Arun
Nate Williams
> > kernel. (GPL and/or LGPL)
>
> I understand it'll continue to be a port. Am I hearing that it is
> unacceptable even as a temporary solution because of the license ?
>
> > It's been answered time and time again over the past months, so you must
> > not be paying attention. The binary distribution hasn't been created
> > because we don't have a legal license to do so (yet).
>
> Yes, I've been reading that for a long time now, but it (what Sun is
> doing) doesn't make any sense to me. Are Sun's reasons
>
> (a) Technical ? Passing of JCK etc ?
> (b) Political ? Yet another competitor to Solaris ?
Sun is very picky about the license they want to give us. In
particular, due to a recent fight in court they had with an well-known
company in the Pacific Northwest, the type of license they are proposing
protects them from just about everything, but doesn't give us enough
lee-way to actually distribute the license.
The difficulty has been trying to appease Sun's lawyers w/out overlying
restricting the team's ability to create and maintain the JDK long-term.
(In other words, we don't want to have to go through this over and over
again for each new JDK release).
> >From your posting it appears that it's technical (not passing JCK),
Passing the JCK/TCK is simply an excercise that we haven't done yet.
Basically, once you pass the TCK, you must ship the *EXACT* version of
the binary without any modifications. Since we are still doing
development of the port, it seemed a waste of time to run the TCK when
we may have to run it again if/when the license is signed. (Running the
TCK is a long, drawn out process that one doesn't want to repeat if at
all possible.)
> well as political (not getting the license to run JCK). What is their
> answer reg: blackdown.org doing the same ?
Blackdown was given access to the JDK before the recent lawsuit, and as
such has 'special' privileges that they are no longer willing to grant
to new licensees.
> May be getting Zdnet to publish an article on this is the right way to
> go ? The bug parades and votes didn't seem to help much.
Actually, it's the reason that Sun is doing the dance with us right
now. The whole Java affair has been a series of mis-steps by all
parties (myself, BSDi, and Sun), so no one party shares the entire
blame. The most recent issue was the BSDi/WindRiver acquisition, which
left us w/out any legal advisors (unless we wanted to pay out of the
pocket, which would have cost upwards of $2K to solve, not something I
can affort).
We're hoping to have something for you in the near future.
Unfortunately, my Sun contact went on vacation yesterday before I could
get some stuff ironed out, and when he gets back from vacation, I'm
going on vacation, so nothing can get done with this for at least
another month.
Nate
Terry Lambert
> Actually, it's the reason that Sun is doing the dance with us right
> now. The whole Java affair has been a series of mis-steps by all
> parties (myself, BSDi, and Sun), so no one party shares the entire
> blame. The most recent issue was the BSDi/WindRiver acquisition,
> which left us w/out any legal advisors (unless we wanted to pay out
> of the pocket, which would have cost upwards of $2K to solve, not
> something I can affort).
Get on the FreeBSD Foundation funded projects list
to get some legal representation.
Now that it's a non-profit, people could donate to
fund the lawyering you need done, and take it as a
tax deduction.
I think one of the most valuable things that the new
foundation will be able to bring to the table is the
ability to get things like this funded, and act as a
sort of a clearing-house for this type of work.
Also, many companies have a charitable contribution
matching program for tax exempt charities; IBM will
match employee contributions to such charities on a
dollar-for-dollar basis, up to some ungodly amount.
I could also see appreciated stock donations -- if
you donate appreciated stock, you can deduct the
full current value, but not have to pay AMT on it...
so you win coming and going.
FWIW: If anyone is planning on taking advantage of
this, they should definitely consult their tax advisor,
since there are limits and restrictions on how this
stuff has to be done.
-- Terry