On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:45:43 -0800 > Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-31 ] > > [ Subjecte: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current ] > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:02:38PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > > Considering that I built the same applications and ran the same > > > > applications fine a while ago, and we've had a binutils upgrade, > > > > and things don't break on other systems, I'm inclined to assume > > > > there are linker bugs afoot, and all the other speculative stuff > > > > seems to be based on misunderstandings or bad information. > > > > > > Huh? Your statement is rather speculative stuff. Other systems > > > (say Linux) are using the same linker we are. Please speculate > > > less. Please grab an older ld and try to prove your speculation. > > > > It's deductive. Other systems are using similar library setups, in > > terms of weak vs. strong systems, > > Wrong. Solaris and Linux differ from FreeBSD each in its own way. > > Linux provides strong pthread definitions in libpthread > Solaris provides weak pthread and _pthread definitions in Libc > with libpthread providing strong _pthread and weak pthread > > We are the weird one it seems.
The only thing that we don't do that Solaris does, is provide weak pthread_ definitions in libc. I'm not opposed to that; I'm opposed to providing strong pthread_ definitions either in libc or libc_r. I added all the weak definitions so that we would look exactly like Solaris libpthread. This was the model I chose when I did this almost 2 years ago. We've been using it that long without any problems until now. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
