From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29168 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2004 19:36:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29148 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 19:36:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 19:36:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.suse.de (hermes-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAC17829ED; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:35:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:36:00 -0000 From: Thorsten Kukuk To: Steve Munroe Cc: libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com Subject: lll_lock on PPC Message-ID: <20040622193504.GA24299@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: SuSE Linux AG, Nuernberg, Germany User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 Hi, if I look at the lll_lock implementation on ix86 and PPC, it seems to me, that on ix86, lll_lock will only call lll_mutex_lock, if the program is linked against libpthread. But on PPC, lll_lock is always called, which can lead to a deadlock. Is this correct? Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE Linux AG Maxfeldstr. 5 D-90409 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B