[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [patches] [PATCH] fix build with linuxthreads
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [patches] [PATCH] fix build with linuxthreads
- From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:21:39 +0100
Joseph S. Myers a écrit :
> On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> The patch below fixes a problem that appears when using EGLIBC with
>> linuxthreads. The linuxthreads version of __libc_lock_lock and
> Why are you using Linuxthreads? Nightly imports of Linuxthreads from FSF
> CVS stopped a long time ago, and it won't be possible to build any EGLIBC
> version later than 2.5 without TLS support unless you apply a lot of local
> patches to work around the lack of such support; if you have TLS support
> for your target, using Linuxthreads instead of NPTL hardly makes sense.
We (Debian) are using it for a few architectures that have TLS support
but not yet (full) NPTL support:
- hppa: it has NPTL support, but with a different ABI. We are waiting
for a compatibility layer using symbol versioning before doing the
transition to NPTL (in development)
- GNU/kFreeBSD i386 and x86_64: we also plan to change the threading
library sooner or later, but currently we haven't decided how to do that.
> I'd have thought the right thing to do is to remove Linuxthreads from
> /trunk and /fsf/trunk to make clear it is no longer a useful part of
FSF has also declared linuxthreads dead, but the fact is that modulo a
few patches, and as long as you have TLS support, it still works
correctly with glibc 2.9 and above.
I don't think EGLIBC should officially supports linuxthreads, but having
this kind of small patch applied won't hurd EGLIBC and would help those
still using linuxthreads.
OTOH I would totally understand that you choose to not apply such a patch.
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73