When I have some time to do this properly, I will definitely do this as it can only help others. Thanks!
Op maandag 28 november 2016 17:16:16 UTC+1 schreef Adam Cozzette: > > Great, I'm glad to hear that it worked! If you want to clean up those > changes and make it easier to build in a single-threaded (pthread-free) > mode, feel free to send out a pull request for it. > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Sam Van den Steen <samvand...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hi Adam, >> >> I checked out your updates and integrated them into my instrumentation >> tool. This seems to work perfectly, no strange crashes anymore. Of course I >> will test this more thoroughly in the next few days, but it's certainly >> promising. >> >> Thanks for the help! >> >> Best, >> Sam >> >> Op woensdag 23 november 2016 22:41:47 UTC+1 schreef Adam Cozzette: >>> >>> I think it should be possible to build without pthreads if you just make >>> a few minor tweaks. I fiddled around with this a little bit and got >>> something that seems to mostly work on a branch here (though I have not >>> really tested it): >>> https://github.com/acozzette/protobuf/tree/without-pthread >>> >>> I mostly just had to do the following: >>> - Update configure.ac to unset HAVE_PTHREAD >>> - Update stubs/common.cc to provide a no-op implementation of the Mutex >>> class. >>> >>> Of course this assumes that your application will be single-threaded; if >>> you were to build the code in this configuration and then use threads >>> anyway, things would go wrong because you have data races caused by the >>> lack of real locking. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Sam Van den Steen <samvand...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I'm developing some binary instrumentation tools where I use protobuf >>>> to save the output. I wrote a Pintool using this and everything works >>>> fine. >>>> However, I wanted to try DynamoRIO because Pin cannot be used to >>>> instrument >>>> ARM code. Apparently DynamoRIO cannot be linked against libpthread which >>>> protobuf needs. >>>> >>>> Is it possible to compile a version of protobuf without pthreads so I >>>> don't have to link against it? I found at least one project where it >>>> seemed >>>> to work, but sadly, the modifications he made to the code are not >>>> available >>>> anymore. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://arachnism.blogspot.be/2010/03/compiling-google-protobuf-without.html >>>> >>>> I also found multiple > five year old threads in this discussion group >>>> (detailing it seemed to be impossible), but I was wondering if it was >>>> possible to compile without pthreads for the newer protobuf 3? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Sam Van den Steen >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Protocol Buffers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
