Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 00:01:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Pawel Worach <pawel.worach@gmail.com> Subject: Re: libthr does not obey WITHOUT_SYSCALL_COMPAT Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0903082343280.8064@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <49B480F7.8040800@freebsd.org> References: <d227e09e0903041123i638a12b8m5d8573cc871d1533@mail.gmail.com> <49B480F7.8040800@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, David Xu wrote: > Pawel Worach wrote: >> Hi, >> >> If libc is built using WITHOUT_SYSCALL_COMPAT applications linked with >> libthr end up having unresolved symbols since libthr references >> __fcntl_compat unconditionally. >> Here is a patch to make libthr also obey WITHOUT_SYSCALL_COMPAT >> http://www.vlakno.cz/~pwo/libthr.diff >> >> Regards > > Committed! I never got around to replying to this... I don't quite understand why __fcntl_compat is there. We have F_GETFD, F_SETFD, F_DUPFD, F_DUP2FD, F_GETFL, F_SETFL, F_GETOWN, and F_SETOWN according to fcntl(2). But thr_syscalls.c only handles F_DUPFD, F_SETFD, F_SETFL, F_GETFD, and F_GETFL, leaving F_DUP2FD, F_GETOWN, and F_SETOWN to be handled by the default case. And the default case does nothing now if WITHOUT_SYSCALL_COMPAT is defined. So how do F_DUP2FD, F_GETOWN, and F_SETOWN get handled? Do we really need to call __sys_fcntl_compat() from libthr? When did the ABI change, before or after libc.so.7? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0903082343280.8064>