On Oct  8 13:14, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:31:24AM -0500, Reini Urban wrote:
> >In http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-07/msg00406.html
> >Corinna hinted that pthread_barrier is a bit hard to implement.
> >
> >I found 2 nice non-GPL implementations, but I'm not sure about the license.
> >There's one in libuv (which I need it for), which is
> >https://github.com/joyent/libuv/blob/master/src/unix/pthread-fixes.c
> >provided by Sony and Google (for Android), which seems to be MIT licensed.
> 
> This one is problematic since it seems like we'd have to include the license
> when we distribute the DLL.  (Shhhh...  I know...)
> 
> >And there's http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bvs/cs267_hw2/particles/pthread_barrier.c
> >without any license, looks it's some berkeley course material.
> >
> >Doesn't look too hard to implement.
> >Should I ask the berkeley guy Brian Van Straalen
> >or is the libuv version good enough for us?
> 
> Code without a license isn't any better than code with a license.  If
> you can get someone to assert that the Berkeley code is in the public
> domain that would help.  Otherwise, I don't think either of these are
> viable options.

Isn't Berkeley code always BSD licensed?  I'm just dreaming of a perfect
world, I guess...

> Perhaps someone could describe the implementations to someone who could
> implement them from scratch.  That would be the safest way to do this
> I think.

Indeed, and in fact the problem is not that there isn't code around
which already implements pthread_barrier stuff, the problem is that none
of that matches the existing, C++ for extremists pthread code in Cygwin.
That's what I was silently implying when I wrote the aforementioned
mail.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat