At 02:02 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Manfred Antar wrote:
>> libc_r won't compile since changes made last night.
>> (libc_r)504}make
>> cc -O -pipe -DLIBC_RCS -DSYSLIBC_RCS -I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/../libc/include
>-DPTHREAD_KERNEL -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/src/lib/li
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Manfred Antar wrote:
> libc_r won't compile since changes made last night.
> (libc_r)504}make
> cc -O -pipe -DLIBC_RCS -DSYSLIBC_RCS -I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/../libc/include
>-DPTHREAD_KERNEL -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread
>-I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/../../include -D_L
libc_r won't compile since changes made last night.
(libc_r)504}make
cc -O -pipe -DLIBC_RCS -DSYSLIBC_RCS -I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/../libc/include
-DPTHREAD_KERNEL -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread
-I/usr/src/lib/libc_r/../../include -D_LOCK_DEBUG -D_PTHREADS_INVARIANTS -c
/usr/src/lib/
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:12:22PM +1100, John Birrell wrote:
> I deleted the weak definitions in the _THREAD_SAFE PRSYSCALL in
> lib/libc/i386/SYS.h and the problem goes away. I don't understand why
> Jason needed to add them in the first place.
I didn't need to add them. At some point during a
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 11:07:40PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:52:02PM +1100, John Birrell wrote:
> > Is it just me, or are the weak symbols in libc_r confusing the linker?
>
> Not just you. Jason and Mike Smith brought this to my attention on
> Friday. I found that
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:52:02PM +1100, John Birrell wrote:
> Is it just me, or are the weak symbols in libc_r confusing the linker?
Not just you. Jason and Mike Smith brought this to my attention on
Friday. I found that if one takes a fresh -CURRENT and then:
cd /usr/src/lib/libc_r
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:16:39PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Out of interest, why does nanosleep appear in libc_r.a as a weak
> symbol version of _thread_sys_nanosleep at all? I would have thought
> this was unnecessary (and based on my experiments, undesirable).
I don't think it is necessary
On 2000-Mar-13 14:45:16 +1100, John Birrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>the linker gives me the weak symbol version which refers to
>_thread_sys_nanosleep (i.e. the syscall), instead of the nanosleep
>function in libc_r.
Out of interest, why does nanosleep appear in libc_r.a as a weak
symbol vers
Is it just me, or are the weak symbols in libc_r confusing the linker?
When I link the following program with "gcc -v -g -static -pthread"
#include
#include
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct timespec t1;
struct timespec t2;
t1.tv_sec = 5;
t1.tv_nsec = 0;
n
