From: Tristan Wibberley <twibberley@llamacom.com>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:52:41 +0000

Re: SYNC mode should go

teunis wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Andrew Apted wrote:
> 
> > MentalGuy writes:
> >
> > >  I've been beating my brains out over the past week or so trying to come up
> > >  with a decent thread-friendly locking scheme that would be consistent with
> > >  and with USE_THREADS and didn't break the signal implementation of mansync
> > >  (or vice versa), and while I sort of worked out an API with both a
> > >  signal-friendly intlock/sigmask locking implementation and a pthreads
> > >  implementation, it's still a pretty ugly and inconsistent solution.
> > >
> > >  Honestly, we should really drop SYNC mode...
> >
> > I second that.
> >
> > SYNC mode is not something that can easily emulated when the target
> > isn't natively sync-ish (like KGI and FBDev are).
> >
> > Like I said before, in all the docs (and demo.c) we strongly recommend
> > not using SYNC mode, yet it remains (and as the default too!).
> >
> > It definitely should be go IMHO.

> PS: I vote with the "take the SYNC out and put it in a toolkit/extension"
> crowd.

Me too. I think it should be removed now, and an extension built. That
means sync mode wont be available for a short while, but that's okay
IMHO.

-- 
Tristan Wibberley		Linux is a registered trademark
				of Linus Torvalds.