Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:24:42 +0900
From:      Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Dag-Erling =?ISO-2022-JP?B?U21fX3JncmF2?= <des@des.no>, Norikatsu, Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: libpthread vs libthr.
Message-ID:  <20061112032442.04c4d246.nork@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611111224560.6747@sea.ntplx.net>
References:  <20061110151247.GA64530@zone3000.net> <20061111022044.8191e1c8.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20061111065629.GA82094@xor.obsecurity.org> <20061111235332.89f24170.nork@FreeBSD.org> <86lkmivws6.fsf@dwp.des.no> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0611111224560.6747@sea.ntplx.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:33:37 -0500 (EST)
Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> wrote:
> world.  Then rebuild your ports.  After that, all your ports will
> reference symbols in FBSD_1_0, and if libthr doesn't provide
> sched_yield@FBSD_1_0, it'll find it in libc.

	By the way, can gdm resolve sched_yield@FBSD_1_0 instead of
	sched_yield@LIBTHREAD_1.0?  I don't think so.  Is there a
	symbol resolving fallback mechanism which I don't know?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061112032442.04c4d246.nork>