From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 30 20:33:52 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 2CB2837B405
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web80502.mail.yahoo.com (web80502.mail.yahoo.com
	[66.218.79.72])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6254843FF9
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from xiongjinshan@yahoo.com)
Message-ID: <20030701033351.62612.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [218.79.98.26] by web80502.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:33:51 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: xiong jinshan <xiongjinshan@yahoo.com>
To: deischen@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <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
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 03:33:52 -0000


--- Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 
It seems ok now, thank you!

> -- 
> Dan Eischen
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com