Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 9/2/2008 10:25 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2008 10:06 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>>
I had to read it more carefully.. you are right, and yes, probably the
issue you were referring to about static link and pthread was raised
>
Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/2/2008 10:25 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 9/2/2008 10:06 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>
>>> I had to read it more carefully.. you are right, and yes, probably the
>>> issue you were referring to about static link and pthread was raised
>>> by me in the past.
>>> It w
On 9/2/2008 10:25 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/2/2008 10:06 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>
>> I had to read it more carefully.. you are right, and yes, probably the
>> issue you were referring to about static link and pthread was raised
>> by me in the past.
>> It was related to opendir functio
Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/2/2008 10:06 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> I had to read it more carefully.. you are right, and yes, probably the
>> issue you were referring to about static link and pthread was raised
>> by me in the past.
>> It was related to opendir function that is the only function
On 9/2/2008 10:06 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> I had to read it more carefully.. you are right, and yes, probably the
> issue you were referring to about static link and pthread was raised
> by me in the past.
> It was related to opendir function that is the only function within libc
> that calls p
Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/1/2008 11:29 AM, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> It looks like my real problem was specific to some changes I made in our
>>> malloc. We use the "mspace" malloc that is in later versions of Doug
>>> Lea's malloc, and one thing we do for performance is
On 9/1/2008 11:29 AM, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> It looks like my real problem was specific to some changes I made in our
>> malloc. We use the "mspace" malloc that is in later versions of Doug
>> Lea's malloc, and one thing we do for performance is to give each thread
>> its
Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/1/2008 2:51 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>> I seem to recall seeing some comment somewhere that static linking
>>> didn't work with pthread programs in the NPTL branch.
>> No, there were bugs in the past but all fixed. We use nptl branch for
>> s
On 9/1/2008 2:51 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> I seem to recall seeing some comment somewhere that static linking
>> didn't work with pthread programs in the NPTL branch.
> No, there were bugs in the past but all fixed. We use nptl branch for
> sh4 statically linked too...
Forwarded just in case this reply previously was not received.
I got an error from the mailer.
Carmelo
Original Message
Subject: Re: static linking for pthreads in nptl branch?
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:27:53 +0200
From: Carmelo AMOROSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organi
Chris Metcalf wrote:
> I seem to recall seeing some comment somewhere that static linking
> didn't work with pthread programs in the NPTL branch.
No, there were bugs in the past but all fixed. We use nptl branch for
sh4 statically linked too... unless I did not push back these fix to the
SVN np
I seem to recall seeing some comment somewhere that static linking
didn't work with pthread programs in the NPTL branch. Of course, I had
to go and debug a crash bug for a few hours first before I actually
remembered. :-)
The problem I ended up looking at was that
__pthread_initialize_minimal()
12 matches
Mail list logo
