This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Further steps towards GL(dl_dynamic_weak) == 0 everywhere

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>, Glibc hackers <libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:00:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Further steps towards GL(dl_dynamic_weak) == 0 everywhere
References: <20021227230724.K1310@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <3E0D7EF9.3010307@redhat.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:37:45AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> But I really think that the LinuxThreads code shouldn't receive that
> much attention.  It is not necessary to have cancellation working as in
> nptl to disable the special weak handling in ld.so.  If the same ld.so
> is used for nptl and linuxthreads just add a hack which disables the
> correct weak handling for LinuxThreads binaries.  Well, if you want to
> continue to do the cancellation adjustment, feel free, but I think it's
> really wasted time.

Having the -lc -lpthread vs. -lpthread -lc solved in
linuxthreads too has the advantage that we can get rid of another bunch of
plt slots in libc. Conditionalizing all the *hidden_proto/*hidden_def's
on NPTL would be ugly.

	Jakub

References:
- [PATCH] Further steps towards GL(dl_dynamic_weak) == 0 everywhere
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Further steps towards GL(dl_dynamic_weak) == 0 everywhere
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]