[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Petr Salinger<Petr.Salinger@seznam.cz> wrote:
> Hi.
>> I spent the last two days rewriting the pthread structure layouts for
>> hppa's nptl implementation.
> It looks very nice and promising now, thanks.
>> I was able to restructure both pthread_mutex_t, and pthread_rwlock_t to be
>> 100% ABI compatible with Linuxthreads.
> Strictly speaking, currently they are not,
> they are only 100% backward compatible.
> But only step away, they could be 100% compatible.
> Just the new NPTL initializers should initilize
> the four ones as previously in LT.

Yes, my intent was to do exactly that, I had not yet fixed pthread.h
to set the old lock words to all one. I have done exactly this in the
most recent version of my patch. The pthread_mutex_t and
pthread_rwlock_t are now 100% ABI compatible with Linuxthreads.

> In practice it shouldn't be problem at all.
> Debian should make sure that binary/library compiled
> against NPTL-hppa-glibc will require NPTL-hppa-glibc
> by proper Depends: line like "libc6 (>= 2.10)".

Does every package have to do this? I'm not very familiar with all the
packaging requirements.

>> The prototype patch in testing is here:
>> http://www.parisc-linux.org/~carlos/2009-08-31-glibc-ports-hppa-nptl.diff

Second version here:

The next version is currently testing. It still does not include code
to remove cond_*_clear calls when the ABI level is raised to 2.10.

> It is not possible to use "#include_next <pthread.h>" in
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/nptl/pthread.h, as this file
> is installed in libc6-dev for general use.


> The pthread_cond_init.c should call cond_compat_clear()
> instead of cond_compat_check_and_clear() or may be just
> "cond->__data.__initializer = 0"


Thanks for the review.


Reply to: