Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:33:02 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RTLD thread safety Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000326152341.7726A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000326092152.A12009@sharmas.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Arun Sharma wrote: > 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 ? I believe Julian, Jason Evans, and myself reached somewhat of a consensus. The details haven't been worked out AFAIK. I have some more diagrams and code snippets that try to work out some of the details, but they need a little more work. I also need to hash things out with Jason and -arch before proceeding much further. Dan Eischen 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1000326152341.7726A-100000>