From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 855753851C36 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 15:10:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 855753851C36 Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id u11so16694362oiv.1 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dymqkBvcVCniutws4MfvHTebKKvstXjdj1JayXtpLgA=; b=aIabB0MO95UAIw2Y8B4vZ0qEGE+Yyb3EJgKrRK93lubLld8l1JWQS44zH/g6XSeaks Ityg28D7fG27tdRYzQf2PbdRU4XqESZi5z43zZ2BzjDtEjBDkxOElyhJSHWqj7LFbsyS d8VNploqTnGBlF2PYd5FZbyNBSMuFZdKWExDprxVsviawq+OZhP/FKuR1wduwaFJBqFo q64TpKNMJ+ZQdt+cSRqOFVz31zgYFkDiBTP5xZEDtrKAjQQXV8P6Lc59Y0na1BIolWPQ pGIP8QrHOfOyBb4o+E0hLRqdwMjXpAFjFOoFTsg72Sd4UFTGOcZuQK+dshh476wPaSrq SEWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jgdYMHPXd5rLBh/0RK2lTGbYy9ybipO9ukbcfFZSK/TtX5WjQ ipm1BB9W+I/8jBqJU3ueCG8gIhmevnNB85nHwziO5yVjCqdKIA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCz88aR+UtEpAOZzYOQ/ft/NSFPt2HGqrwZvBa6Y8FUhzQltbsfMuzWA/1g4m6l436GI2LKkHOOm7q9y3rx4M= X-Received: by 2002:aca:dd82:: with SMTP id u124mr3687614oig.35.1621523435949; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:10:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87eee4ccpd.fsf@igel.home> <87v97g5bi9.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87a6oscbc0.fsf@igel.home> <87r1i459cb.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <875yzgc8hi.fsf@igel.home> <87mtss57go.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <871ra4c7kf.fsf@igel.home> <878s49pmbg.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87im3dwm2s.fsf@igel.home> <871ra1pl2v.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <871ra1pl2v.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 08:09:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] nptl: Complete libpthread removal To: Florian Weimer Cc: Andreas Schwab , Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3028.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 15:10:37 -0000 On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:06 AM Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: > > * Andreas Schwab: > > > On Mai 20 2021, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > >> That is, keep libpthread.so.0 around indefinitely (with the > >> placeholder symbols and symbol versions), and just wait until more and > >> more binaries are linked with the empty libpthread.a and no longer > >> have a DT_NEEDED dependency on libpthread.so.0? > > > > I don't see any downsides with this approach. > > There's a slight additional run-time overhead due to the loaded object. > But I don't feel strongly about this. > > Do you think it's okay if we ship libpthread.a only, or should we > install a no-op libpthread.so as well? -lpthread will use the .a file > for static and dynamic links, so I think that's sufficient. Can we ship a dummy linker script for libpthread.so to just satisfy -lpthread at link-time? -- H.J.