Re: TLS. nptl and gcc/glibc/binutils
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:51:37AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:18:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > > My thought is that gcc-3.3 will be out soon enough for us to use that.
>
> > But for future coming stable gcc-3.3, we should start to support tls
> > and nptl, and I already start to investigate. I think we should have
> > two libc6: libc6-linuxthreads (linuxthreads) and libc6-nptl (nptl).
> > This means that now the name libc6 becomes virtual package or
> > something.
>
> I haven't investigated - does the core glibc library actually change
> based on each add on? It would be nice to have just the pthreads change
> for two reasons:
I think the library changes. But we don't want to move away from a
real libc6 package IMO. Anyone who wants the NPTL support installed
can live with having the LinuxThreads support installed also. That's
how Red Hat does it too, IIRC.
[It's essentially a hwcap thing]
> Less to switch from one to the other, and it would be interesting to be
> able to use apt-cache to show which packages used pthreads.
>
> > > The biggest problem is that Debian's kernels don't have futex
> > > support. I've heard that RedHat has some solution for automatically
> > > detecting which they should use, but I don't know anything about it.
>
> > I hope someone intent to package redhat9's 2.4 Ingo's backport patch.
> > BTW, I use the latest kernel on my some machines, so it's not problem
> > for me.
>
> I keep wondering why it's not been accepted upstream. I don't follow
> Linux kernel development anymore, so I don't know the story.
Because 2.4 is a maintenance line, and the patch is gigantic.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: