On Thursday 17 September 2015 01:05 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On September 17, 2015 12:09:17 AM GMT+02:00, Vineet Gupta > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Bernhard, >> >> >> On Tuesday 04 August 2015 01:42 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:23 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>>> On July 24, 2015 9:17:27 AM GMT+02:00, Vineet Gupta >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Friday 24 July 2015 09:26 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>>>>> On July 22, 2015 5:05:34 PM GMT+02:00, Alexey Brodkin >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Bernard, >>>>>>>> This patch indeed fixes problems with duplicate vfork in both >> libc >>>>> and >>>>>>>> libpthread. >>>>>>>> I'm wondering if there's a chance for this patch to be applied >>>>> still? >>>>>> Well, but it's wrong, isn't it. >>>>> Is it ? It makes pthread also use the libc version. The only >> difference >>>>> between >>>>> them was pthread version had a small optimization which could be >> done >>>>> away >>>>> altogether with if u read thru the tread below. >>>>> >>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-05/msg00238.html >>>>> >>>>>> pt-vfork.o should instead live in, say, libpthread_nonshared.a >> and >>>>> be at the end of the libs so it is picked up by the linker when >> static >>>>> linking, no? >>>>> >>>>> Could be done that way too but not needed if above is sufficient. >>>> Above makes RESET_PID superfluous, doesn't it. >>> >>> RESET_PID applies to clone; while{SAVE,RESTORE}_PID apply to vfork. I >> presume u >>> meant latter ? Perhaps clone can be tweaked too - but thats for >> another patch ! >>> >>> Assuming above is correct, you want those macros to be removed from >>> nptl/*/**/vfork.S as well as libc/sysdeps/linux/*/vfork.S and >> preferably replace >>> with a comment in case of latter set of files. >>> >>> Can this be done in 2 steps, so the first patch from Waldemar be >> applied as it is >>> and then we do the cleanup to remove _PID from all the files (or is >> it too much >>> churn cross arches) > > 2-step is fine for me too, as you prefer.
Waldermar's patch below while still valid, doesn't apply cleanly due to conflict in a line(s) nuked already by your cleanup patch. Care to apply below with manual fixups. http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-September/048613.html Regarding removing _PID stuff - I took a stab at it - so we inline the code corresponding to {SAVE,RESTORE}_PID macros, however then it won't be valid/build for LT.old - since tls.h / tcb_offset.h are not present there. -Vineet _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
