Re: [PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

2010-05-03 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:14:38AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote: Yes, static linking would be more bullet proof. But either the user, or the package manager needs jump through hoops in this case. There needs to be the static versions compiled, they need to get installed, then finally replaced with

Re: [PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

2010-05-03 Thread Natanael Copa
2010/5/3 Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca: On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:14:38AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote: Yes, static linking would be more bullet proof. But either the user, or the package manager needs jump through hoops in this case. There needs to be the static versions compiled,

Re: [PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

2010-05-03 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:16:29PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote: because you want avoid 10 times bigger binary? (alpine linux's apk-tools is 90k dynamic and 900k static due to libcrypto for hashing/signing) Wow that does sound pretty big. Yes for upgrade, I'll probably recommend do that with

Re: [PATCH] nptl: proper soname handling

2010-05-03 Thread Laurent Bercot
because you want avoid 10 times bigger binary? (alpine linux's apk-tools is 90k dynamic and 900k static due to libcrypto for hashing/signing) So what? libcrypto obviously wasn't designed for embedded environments. In fact, it's probably the most bloated free crypto library around. If the

Re: [PATCH] nptl: fix sem_open with O_CREAT

2010-05-03 Thread Austin Foxley
On 05/02/2010 12:45 PM, Roman I Khimov wrote: Temporary file name template passed to __gen_tempname had no XX in it, so __gen_tempname returned EINVAL which led to sem_open failure. Thanks, applied. -Austin ___ uClibc mailing list

Re: [PATCH] nptl: use arch-specific cancellation routines for x86_64

2010-05-03 Thread Austin Foxley
On 04/30/2010 07:18 AM, Roman I Khimov wrote: They were present in sources, but not compiled in. Generic routines are broken badly on x86_64, even basic threading test like pthread/ex1 didn't work with them. Signed-off-by: Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru Applied thanks -Austin

Re: [PATCH] nptl: use arch-specific pthread_cond_timedwait and pthread_cond_wait on x86_64

2010-05-03 Thread Austin Foxley
On 04/30/2010 07:18 AM, Roman I Khimov wrote: Generic ones were broken on x86_64, pthread/ex2 test failed while pthread/ex5 worked fine. So use arch-specific functions and fix linkage failure with __pthread_mutex_cond_lock_adjust. Signed-off-by: Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru Applied