Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:21:52 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RTLD thread safety Message-ID: <20000326092152.A12009@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <20000326110408.A378@tar.com>; from Richard Seaman, Jr. on Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:04:08AM -0600 References: <20000325225615.A11307@sharmas.dhs.org> <20000326110408.A378@tar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:04:08AM -0600, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > No. See the file libc_thread.c in the linuxthreads port. > > Note that if you call rfork (RF_MEM...) without any supporting > infrastructure (eg. as provided by the linuxthreads port) you > are in dangerous territory. You do not get *any* of the > thread safe behaviour in libc, libgcc, or in ld-ef.so. So you went the dllockinit way. Why not put that code in ld-elf.so itself ? Same goes for other work you've done as a part of the linuxthreads port. If it is the GPL contamination issue, someone (perhaps me) can rewrite the relevant parts. When FreeBSD has it's own native kernel supported pthreads package, all these things will be very much necessary, irrespective of which threads model the package uses. So why not do this work now ? Also, what happened to all the discussion on -arch ? Was there a consensus reached ? -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000326092152.A12009>