[[!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

[[service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663/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> 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/i386/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


## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-07

    <tschwinge> Also, the Savannah hurd/glibc.git one does not/not yet include
      libpthread.
    <tschwinge> But that could easily be added as a Git submodule.
    <tschwinge> youpi: To put libpthread into glibc it is literally enough to
      make Savannah hurd/libpthread.git appear at [glibc]/libpthread?
    <youpi> tschwinge: there are some patches needed in the rest of the tree
    <youpi> see in debian, libpthread_clean.diff, tg-libpthread_depends.diff,
      unsubmitted-pthread.diff, unsubmitted-pthread_posix_options.diff
    <tschwinge> The libpthread in Debian glibc is
      hurd/libpthread.git:b428baaa85c0adca9ef4884c637f289a0ab5e2d6 but with
      25260994c812050a5d7addf125cdc90c911ca5c1 »Store self in __thread variable
      instead of threadvar« reverted (why?), [...]

..., and 549aba4335946c26f2701c2b43be0e6148d27c09 »Fix libpthread.so symlink«
cherry-picked.

    <braunr> tschwinge: is there any plan to merge libpthread.git in glibc.git
      upstream ?
    <tschwinge> braunr, youpi: Has not yet been discussed with Roland, as far
      as I know.
    <youpi> has not
    <youpi> libpthread.diff is supposed to be a verbatim copy of the repository
    <youpi> and then there are a couple patches which don't (yet) make sense
      upstream


## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-02-08

    <tschwinge> I also have it on my (never-ending) agenda to add libpthread to
      the tschwinge/Roger_Whittaker branch and/or propose it be added upstream
      (as a Git submodule?).
    <pinotree> imho a git submodule could be a solution, if glibc people would
      accept it
    <pinotree> if so, libpthread.git would need proper glibc/x.y branches to
      follow glibc
    <tschwinge> Yep.
    <tschwinge> I though that would be the least invasive approach for glibc
      upstream -- and quite convenient for us, too.
    <pinotree> after all, git submodules don't track branches, but point to
      specific commits, no?
    <tschwinge> Correct.
    <tschwinge> So we can do locally/in Debian whatever we want, and every once
      in a while update the upstream glibc commit ID for libpthread.
    <pinotree> so we could update the git submodule references in glibc when
      we've tested enough libpthread changes
    <tschwinge> Just like when committing patches upstream, just without
      pestering them with all the patches/commits.
    <tschwinge> Yep.


# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-11-16

    <pinotree> *** $(common-objpfx)resolv/gai_suspend.o: uses
      /usr/include/i386-gnu/bits/pthread.h
    <pinotree> so the ones in the libpthread addon are not used...
    <tschwinge> pinotree: The latter at leash should be useful information.
    <pinotree> tschwinge: i'm afraid i didn't get you :) what are you referring
      to?
    <tschwinge> pinotree: s%leash%least -- what I mean was the it's actually a
      real bug that not the in-tree libpthread addon include files are being
      used.
    <pinotree> tschwinge: ah sure -- basically, the stuff in
      libpthread/sysdeps/generic are not used at all
    <pinotree> (glibc only uses generic for glibc/sysdeps/generic)
    <pinotree> tschwinge: i might have an idea how to fix it: moving the
      contents from libpthread/sysdeps/generic to libpthread/sysdeps/pthread,
      and that would depend on one of the latest libpthread patches i sent


# libihash

## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-11-16

    <pinotree> also, libpthread uses hurd's ihash
    <tschwinge> Yes, I already thought a little bit about the ihash thing.  I
      besically see two options: move ihash into glibc ((probably?) not as a
      public interface, though), or have libpthread use of of the hash
      implementations that surely are already present in glibc.
    <tschwinge> My notes say:
    <tschwinge>       * include/inline-hashtab.h
    <tschwinge>       * locale/programs/simple-hash.h
    <tschwinge>       * misc/hsearch_r.c
    <tschwinge>       * NNS; cf. f46f0abfee5a2b34451708f2462a1c3b1701facd
    <tschwinge> No idea whether they're equivalent/usable.
    <pinotree> interesting
    <tschwinge> And no immediate recollection what NNS is;
      f46f0abfee5a2b34451708f2462a1c3b1701facd is not a glibc commit after all.
      ;-)
    <tschwinge> Oh, and: libiberty: `hashtab.c`
    <pinotree> hmm, but then you would need to properly ifdef the libpthread
      hash usage (iirc only for pthread keys) depending on whether it's in
      glibc or standalone
    <pinotree> but that shouldn't be an ussue, i guess
    <pinotree> *issue
    <tschwinge> No that'd be fine.
    <tschwinge> My understanding is that the long-term goal (well, no so
      long-term, actually) is to completely move libpthread into glibc.
    <pinotree> ie have it buildable only ad glibc addon?
    <tschwinge> Yes.
    <tschwinge> No need for more than one mechanism for building it, I think.
    <tschwinge> Hmm, this doesn't bring us any further:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=f46f0abfee5a2b34451708f2462a1c3b1701facd
    <pinotree> yay for acronyms ;)
    <tschwinge> So, if someone figures out what NNS and this commit it are: one
      beer.  ;-)