From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 30 20:02:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B0337B401
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB9843F75
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h6132jAI004906;
	Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:02:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:02:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: xiong jinshan <xiongjinshan@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030701022915.50290.qmail@web80503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306302255150.3758-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: About the kse signal process
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:02:47 -0000

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, xiong jinshan wrote:
> 
> --- Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, xiong jinshan wrote:
> > > It received the SIGSEGV before the main() when I
> > > linked   with libc_r;(.
> > 
> > I think you have something screwed up somewhere.
> > How did you compile and link it?
> 
> Yes, it maybe my fault. 
> 
> If I link libc_r with static, it works correctly. 
> If I link it with dynamic, segv occurs.
> If I not linked c_r, th_func() couldn't received the
> alarm.
> 
> Why must it be linked with static mode? Does it mean
> the native c library in release 5.1 not reentrant?

It doesn't have to be statically linked.  Are you
explicitly using -lc? (don't!)  In 5.x, you link
threaded programs (if linking against libc_r) with:

	gcc -o app app.c -lc_r

Or, using the deprecated -pthread option:

	gcc -o app -pthread app.c

As I said, it works here for me on -current.  It doesn't
look like anything has changed in libc_r since 5.1.

-- 
Dan Eischen