Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

. * In libpthread case, the problem goes away if we modify rtld code. * In libthr case, in addition to above, we must modify libthr code to provide implementation of the locks for rtld. right? -- Kazuaki Oda ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?

.. -- Kazuaki Oda ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?

: /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c:1723 Abort (core dumped) Hmm, it seems dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe. Is this a known issue? -- Kazuaki Oda ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd

Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?

. I got no assert failed message, and it took longer time to crash than before. In libthr case, I could not find any difference. BTW do you know the reason why lock is released before calling objlist_call_fini()? If we don't release the lock, what problem will occur? deadlock? -- Kazuaki Oda

question about preemption code

of this, we do context switch even if td's priority is lower than PRI_MAX_ITHD. And, I think, it is not PREEMPTION, but FULL_PREEMPTION. Kazuaki Oda ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd