Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:04:42 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Subject: Re: nss_ldap broken Message-ID: <406C217A.8080102@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10404010804250.29968-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10404010804250.29968-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: [...] >>- it should be documented somewhere (bsd.port.mk gives you only PTHREAD_LIBS) As far as I understand the problem, every application that doesn't link to pthreads, but uses a library that does crashes on -CURRENT. Am I right there? >>- it requires some major surgery to ports makefiles to make sure that >> libraries and application in a port are linked differently > > I think if you use -pthread instead of -lpthread, it will not > link to the threads library when building a shared library. > Unfortunately, Linux and others seem to have changed their > -pthread behavior so that it no longer avoids linking to > the threads library when building shared. So -pthread may > work for us now, but we may want [be forced] to change. See my answer in the last paragraph. >>- there should be some easy tests, i.e. is it always an error if ldd *.so >> contains libpthread? > > I think it is dependent on the library. If the library truly is > creating threads behind the scene (suppose there were a libaio) > then it needs the threads library. > > On the other hand, for applications that want to use libaio, you > could force them to link to a threads library instead of having > it automatically brought in by libaio. I guess the latter approach will be preferrable, especially since the former does seem to trigger the problem we have... >>I committed a workaround for the OpenLDAP client port, but it seems that we >>have may this problem in other parts of the system too, so a general >>guideline (perhaps with a note in /usr/ports/CHANGES) would be appreciated. >>Or do I overestimate the extend of this issue here? > > I would suspect that most libraries don't create threads on > their own, but it would require maintainers to know a little > more about their ports. I'm not sure there's one easy solution, > but I suppose you could try rebuilding ports with > PTHREAD_LIBS=-pthread to see if that helps and what it > breaks. We can change the default for all ports, and it is (more or less) easy to override the flags in one port, if it uses the wrong ones. I think it is not really feasable to change ports so that libraries and applications are linked with different flags. Currently I returned to accepting the default OpenLDAPs configure gives me, which is -pthread. This is *not* what bsd.port.mk has (-lpthread). What would be the consequences of changing the default back to -pthread? -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?406C217A.8080102>