1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2012 Free Software Foundation,
Inc."]]
[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license
is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
[[!tag open_issue_libpthread open_issue_glibc]]
[[!toc]]
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2010-07-31
<tschwinge> My idea was to have a separate libpthread package. What do you
think about that?
<youpi> in the long term, that can't work with glibc
<youpi> because of the thread stub stuff
[[libpthread_dlopen]], for example.
<youpi> it's not really possible to keep synchronized
<youpi> because you have to decide which package you unpack first
<youpi> (when upgrading)
<tschwinge> Hmm, how is that different if two shared libraries are in one
package vs. two packages? It isn't atomic either way? Aren't sonames /
versioned library packages solving that?
<tschwinge> ... for incompatible forward changes?
<youpi> that'd be a mess to maintain
<youpi> Drepper doesn't have this constraint and thus adds members of
private fields at will
<tschwinge> OK, but how is it different then if the libpthread is in the
Hurd package?
<youpi> I'm not saying it's better to have libpthread in the Hurd package
<tschwinge> OK.
<youpi> I'm saying it's useless to package it separately when Drepper makes
everything to have us put it along glibc
<tschwinge> Then, to goal is to have it in glibc?
<tschwinge> OK. :-)
<tschwinge> OK, I can accommodate to that. Isn't not that we'd want to
switch libpthread to something else so quickly.
<tschwinge> So our official goal is to have libpthread in glibc, at least
for Debian purposese?
<youpi> for any port purpose
<tschwinge> Ack.
<youpi> provided you're using glibc, you're deemed to ship libpthread with
it
<youpi> because of the strong relations Drepper puts between them
<youpi> (just to remind: we already have bugs just because our current
libpthread isn't bound enough to glibc: dlopen()ing a library depending
on libpthread doesn't work, for instance)
<pinotree> yeah, pthread-stubs is linked to almost everywhere -lpthread
isn't used
<pinotree> (would be nice to not have those issues anymore...)
<tschwinge> So -- what do we need to put it into glibc? We can make
libpthread a Git submodule (or move the code; but it's shared also for
Neal's viengoos, so perhaps the submodule is better?), plus some glibc
make foo, plus some other adaptions (stubs, etc.)
<tschwinge> Does that sound about right, or am I missing something
fundamental?
<youpi> I actually don't know what a git submodule permits :)
<youpi> looks like a good thing for this, yes
<tschwinge> Unfortunately I can't allocate much time at the moment to work
on this. :-/
<youpi> well, as long as I know where we're going, I can know how to
package stuff in Debian
<tschwinge> That sounds like a plan to me. libpthread -> glibc as
submodule.
<youpi> (note: actually, the interface between glibc and the libpthread is
the responsibility of the libpthread: it gives a couple of .c files to be
shipped in libc.so)
# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-21
<youpi> had you tried to build libpthread as a glibc addon?
<tschwinge> youpi: No, I only know about libpthread in Hurd build system,
and libpthread stand-alone (with the Auto* stuff that I added), but not
yet as a glibc add-on.
<youpi> k
<youpi> I'm trying it atm
<tschwinge> Oh, OK.
<youpi> that should fix the no-add-needed issue in gcc/binutils, as well as
the pthread_threads assertion errors in threaded plugins
<youpi> (once I add forward.c, but that part should not be hard)
<pinotree> that means also less use of pthread-stubs^
<pinotree> ?
<youpi> tschwinge: do you remember whether sysdeps/mach/bits/spin* are used
by anybody?
<youpi> they are half-finished (no __PTHREAD_SPIN_LOCK_INITIALIZER), and
come in the way when building in glibc
<youpi> also, any reason for using ia32 and not i386? glibc uses the latter
<youpi> pinotree: rid of pthread-stubs yes
<pinotree> \o/
<tschwinge> youpi: You mean sysdeps/mach/i386/machine-lock.h? No idea
about that one, sorry.
<youpi> I'm talking about libpthread
<youpi> not glibc
<tschwinge> Oh.
<tschwinge> sysdeps/ia32/bits/spin-lock.h:# define
__PTHREAD_SPIN_LOCK_INITIALIZER ((__pthread_spinlock_t) 0)
<tschwinge> Anyway, no idea about that either.
<youpi> that one is meant to be used with the spin-lock.h just below
<youpi> +-inline
<youpi> also, I guess signal/ was for the l4 port?
<tschwinge> youpi: I guess so.
<youpi> tschwinge: I have an issue with sysdeps pt files:
sysdeps/hurd/pt-getspecific.c is not looked for by libc ; symlinking into
sysdeps/mach/hurd/pt-getspecific.c works
<youpi> we don't have a non-mach sysdeps directory?
<pinotree> youpi: if you add sysdeps/mach/hurd/Implies containing only
"hurd", does sysdeps/hurd work?
<youpi> ah, right
<pinotree> youpi: did it work? (and, it was needed in sysdeps/mach/hurd, or
in libpthread/sysdeps/mach/hurd?)
<youpi> pinotree: it worked, it was for libpthread
<youpi> good: I got libpthread built and forward working
## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-04-23
<youpi> phew
<youpi> confirmed that moving libpthread to glibc fixes the gcc/binutils
no-add-needed issue
|
