Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:22:37 +1000 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: stable@freebsd.org, jb@freebsd.org, eischen@vigrid.com Subject: Re: pthreads in -stable Message-ID: <199906290422.OAA11718@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <95582.930629381@zippy.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Jun 28, 1999 9: 9:41 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > I can't help but notice that pthread support in -current is *much* > different than that currently in -stable and the reason I ask is that > a certain large, well-known application is having looping problems > within the current libc_r code, to wit: There have been a few big commits to -current quite recently. The MFC is pending people getting a chance to try the code. > When I went to trace this out, I then found that the code to deal with > this case in -current was significantly different than the code in > -stable and it set me to wondering if a MFC was simply in order. I'm > currently trying to build this product under -current (a very > laborious process) to see if the problem has automagically gone away > with the new libc_r, but even if this fixes it we'll still be screwed > until we MFC since this product has to run under production versions > of the OS and that means 3.3 at the very minimum. Just take the libc_r from your current system. The internals of the implementation are (supposed to be) opaque. Should be easy to try out if the application is dynamically linked. At worst it'll be a relink if the application is statically linked. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906290422.OAA11718>