Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:27:05 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@bellatlantic.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: ak03@gte.com, tlambert2@mindspring.com, dfr@nlsystems.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current Message-ID: <20021031102705.05ad7b4b.kabaev@bellatlantic.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10210310956200.3821-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20021031094459.559e0292.kabaev@bellatlantic.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10210310956200.3821-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'll respond to two messages in one. > No, you stated that Solaris libpthread defines pthread_ symbols > strong. It doesn't. Perhaps you really meant _pthread_ symbols, > which is what you say above. No, I meant a simple fact that Solaris provides weak definition for both _pthread and pthread symbols. I assumed you have seen the pthread definition in libc since you brought that example up. I apologize if 'weak' got omitted from my message and got you confused. In another message: > The only thing that we don't do that Solaris does, is provide weak > pthread_ definitions in libc. I'm not opposed to that; I'm opposed > to providing strong pthread_ definitions either in libc or libc_r. Then we are in complete agreement. Adding weak aliases for pthread symbols is what I mean under following Solaris all the way. > We've been using it that long without any problems until now. But loading libc_r linked libraries into non-threaded processes din't work ever since libc_r got split from libc. This is a weird case which does not happen a lot in the wild anyway. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021031102705.05ad7b4b.kabaev>