Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:51:00 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Comments about FreeBSD threading from Apache people Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311130137450.338-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20031113045131.GA5544@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > Hi, > > I compiled httpd-2.0.47 from apache.org, and compiled > the latest APR from ports with threading (-lc_r) enabled. > This was with a -CURRENT, cvsup'd from last week. > > I was able to reproduce the behavior that Justin > Erenkrantz outlined with libc_r. > I then added the following to /etc/libmap.conf: > > [/opt/home/rodrigc/httpd/bin/httpd] > libc_r.so libkse.so > libc_r.so.5 libkse.so.1 > > At this point, Apache worked fine. > > So, I can understand from the Apache point of view > why they don't want to enable threads by default > in APR. This whole discussion came about because > I maintain the APR port for FreeBSD, and recently > tried to push some threading configury fixes > upstream back to the APR maintainers, and they balked. > > I'd still like to push my APR changes upstream to them, > but maybe with threads disabled by default on FreeBSD, > instead of enabled by default as I had in my patch. > > How close are we to having libkse as the default > threading library on FreeBSD? The ports maintainers > define PTHREAD_LIBS to be -pthread on older FreeBSD's, > and -lc_r on newer ( > 500016) and do not tell people > to explicitly link to -lkse. Supposedly, libkse will be default for archs in which it is supported (currently i386, amd64, ia64) for 5.2-RELEASE. It is undecided whether it will be default by means of installing an appropriate libmap.conf, or by renaming libkse back to libpthread and changing PTHREAD_LIBS to -lpthread (and also changing gcc -pthread so that it links to libpthread instead of libc_r). Port maintainers shouldn't get too concerned about this; they should continue to rely on PTHREAD_LIBS and PTHREAD_CFLAGS. I suppose there is the possibility that some ports may want a specific threads library. In that case, perhaps PTHREAD_LIBS can be overridden by the port. But you should probably ask ports@ to see if that is how it should be handled. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10311130137450.338-100000>