I just noticed that libc6.1 is scheduled to be upgraded in "stable" -
will this be a broken one?
I'd hate for a broken libc to be in stable ....
...tom
Uwe Schindler wrote:
At 10:45 27.02.2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Now I am very happy with alpha support, the only thing is the problem
> with multithreaded apps (the bug in glibc that creates defunct
> processes)! Is there any news about that? This is very annoying
> because there is a patch available for that since about 3-4 months!!!
> Why is nobody able to apply this patch to glibc without discussing
> all the time about pros and cons that does not matter?
Sorry, to you have a pointer to the patch for this? I don't think
there are
any alpha porters actively involved in the glibc packaging right now; I
guess there ought to be, but so far alpha has generally been reliable
enough
that there hasn't been a need. :/ Of course, I'm sure even with commit
access I can't apply it without figuring out what pros and cons *do*
matter,
so you might want to spell out which ones you believe don't matter :)
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=325600
This one is the patch:
From: Tom Evans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
Subject: Re: 325600 (<defunct> threads on Alpha).
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:59:24 -0400
If I simply change (in
linuxthreads/sysdep/unix/sysv/linux/not-cancel.h)
from:
# define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \
INLINE_SYSCALL (osf_wait4, 4, pid, stat_loc, options, NULL)
to:
# define waitpid_not_cancel(pid, stat_loc, options) \
wait4( pid, stat_loc, options, NULL )
all is well - I understand the performance benefits of the inlining,
but since x86 is NPTL anyway, perhaps this is an okay solution?
I'm guessing that there is an Alpha-related optimizer bug perhaps?
Or that the inline_syscall4 in sysdep/unix/alpha/sysdep.h is somehow
broken?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
