From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11200 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2005 20:58:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10522 invoked by uid 48); 1 Feb 2005 20:58:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050201205832.10521.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "nix at esperi dot org dot uk" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20050117073135.674.andihartmann@freenet.de> References: <20050117073135.674.andihartmann@freenet.de> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug linuxthreads/674] Error compiling linuxthreads in glibc 2.3.4 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From nix at esperi dot org dot uk 2005-02-01 20:58 ------- > libc's decision is obviously correct: if __thread is available, you *should* use > it for errno; this won't change merely because floating stacks happen to be > available in one particular threading implementation. So something needs to > change in linuxthreads. > > I'm still not sure what. That code is a bit of a maze, with HAVE___THREAD and > USE_TLS interacting in ways that are still unclear to me. Well, there's code in the linuxthreads Makefile that tries to deal with this case, by pulling the errno.c and herrno.c files out of libc and forcibly linking against them, but that doesn't help because errno.c and herrno.c aren't declaring _errno, _h_errno or _res, because USE___THREAD was turned on when they were linked. Perhaps we'll have to use an rtld-Rules-like hack to recompile errno.c and herrno.c... I really would rather avoid that, though. All this mess just to point at the primary copy of errno.c in the main thread. Why was errno ever invented. Curses. -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=674 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.