Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:54:24 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 235158] lang/lua53 no longer linked against pthread Message-ID: <bug-235158-7788-vZLxdZuOii@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-235158-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-235158-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D235158 --- Comment #10 from andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk --- (In reply to i+fbsd from comment #7) You have to understand that this is not a bug in the lua port, but rather a= bug in the base system; changing the lua port is a *workaround*, not a fix. It's important for lua-5.3.so (as distinct from the lua53 binary) not to be linked against pthreads because of exactly the problem you're reporting. If= it were true that linking the .so against pthreads did not cause any issue, th= en your bug report would not exist; if you link the .so against pthreads as pa= rt of a workaround to fix *your* bug, then it breaks anyone *else* who is tryi= ng to use Lua in dynamic plugins in non-threaded programs. (Lua itself has no interaction with pthreads whatsoever.) (Or to put it another way: if it's safe to link the .so against pthreads th= en it is also unnecessary to do so, while if it's not safe then obviously it m= ust not be done. Therefore, either way you don't do it.) Would you be prepared to try out some non-Lua test cases for me to try and reproduce the underlying bug? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-235158-7788-vZLxdZuOii>