| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 10:16 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 09:42 -0400, solar wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:35 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > So... What do we say to going nptl across the board for 2006.0 on every |
| 5 |
> > > platform that supports 2.6 headers? This would, of course, require |
| 6 |
> > > approval from each arch team, but I'm sure ppc and amd64 are chomping at |
| 7 |
> > > the bits for this one, and it sounds like the x86 arch team is wanting |
| 8 |
> > > it also. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > ppc32 - has problems with nptl when not using linuxthreads (oddly it |
| 11 |
> > works with ASLR in place however). |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > x86 - sometimes has problems with *some* clients and the RTLD. |
| 14 |
> > Seems to be a problem with ld.so paths and having intermixed |
| 15 |
> > nptl/shared/static handling but I'm not sure. I have had nothing but |
| 16 |
> > success on x86 with it, but others seem to. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > amd64 - Seems to support it well. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > mips, sparc, ia64, m68k, arm - (don't know) |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Speaking only for ppc64 we have been running nptl or nptlonly systems |
| 24 |
for a good while now and *almost* took the plunge to make it the default |
| 25 |
in 2005.1. For us this would be a welcome change. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Daniel Ostrow |
| 29 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 30 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
| 31 |
dostrow@g.o |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives