On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:07:47PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Raimo Niskanen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have also found patches (#3, #4 and #7) by Philip Guenther in > > the archives of this list from May 4. > > > > Can anyone enlighten me about if these/which patches still > > are useful or if there are fresher ones or if the > > 4.4 release kernel or the -current kernel already > > contains some of them... > > Ooog, the May 4th ones are a bit out of date. Several of them have > been merged, others revised. I posted a revised version of the thread > signal handling patch on Sep 17th. I have some stuff beyond that, but > I need to merge the feedback I've already received and do some more > testing before I send it out anywhere. > > > > Or even better, what is the preferred way to test > > rthreads for an application? I will build the application > > from source and will happily patch the build? > > As Ted observed, there's no need to rebuild. I do most my testing via > LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I.e., in $HOME/lib I have a copy of librthread.so > under the name libpthread.so.11.0, so if I start a program with > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/lib in its environment, then it uses rthreads > instead of user-level threads. That works as long as the program (a) > isn't setuid, and (b) doesn't itself mishandle LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Thanks a lot. I'll start with that solution. The reason I do not want to replace libpthread is that it feels safer to affect my test application only. Is it obvious how to build librthread.so? > > > Philip Guenther -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
