On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Doug Rabson wrote:
> > > You need to link the library against libc_r.so instead of libXThrStub.so.
> >
> > Probably not. Doing that breaks the existing 'feature' of being able to
> > use X11 in entirely non-threaded programs. I'm not sure whether that is
> > acceptable. It also stops programs from being able to select between
> > several thread implementations, of which -current has two.
> >
> > I think the only sensible solution to this problem is for libraries which
> > provide an actual pthreads implementation (rather than a set of stubs) to
> > define strong symbols. Wierd debugging wrappers can still be achieved via
> > some dlopen/dlsym hackery.
>
> OK... I guess I don't understand the problem.
>
> If you are not compiling threaded programs for use with X, and
> X itself is not threaded, then why the heck was the threads stuff
> there in the first place?
>
> If X itself uses threads, then you need to use threads: there's
> no option in the matter.
>
> If libX11.so does not reference, the threads symbols, who cares?
>
> If libX11.so *does* reference the threads symbols, then they need
> to be there.
>
> You can't have a library that's sort of threaded and sort of not
> threaded: pick one.
Yes you can - libX11 is *thread safe* but doesn't create threads. When a
real pthreads implementation is present, libX11 uses its implementation of
mutex, cond etc. to ensure its own safety. If the application doesn't link
to a real pthreads implementation, it uses no-op stubs instead.
--
Doug Rabson Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +44 20 8348 6160
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
