| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:35 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> So... What do we say to going nptl across the board for 2006.0 on every |
| 3 |
> platform that supports 2.6 headers? This would, of course, require |
| 4 |
> approval from each arch team, but I'm sure ppc and amd64 are chomping at |
| 5 |
> the bits for this one, and it sounds like the x86 arch team is wanting |
| 6 |
> it also. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
ppc32 - has problems with nptl when not using linuxthreads (oddly it |
| 9 |
works with ASLR in place however). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
x86 - sometimes has problems with *some* clients and the RTLD. |
| 12 |
Seems to be a problem with ld.so paths and having intermixed |
| 13 |
nptl/shared/static handling but I'm not sure. I have had nothing but |
| 14 |
success on x86 with it, but others seem to. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
amd64 - Seems to support it well. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
mips, sparc, ia64, m68k, arm - (don't know) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Sadly we don't really have any NPTL guru's (know of any?) that are able |
| 21 |
to quickly fix nptl bugs so they just keep piling up in bugzilla. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There remain outstanding bugs with nptl problems. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=nptl&field0-0-1=component&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-1=nptl&field0-0-2=short_desc&type0-0-2=substring&value0-0-2=nptl&field0-0-3=status_whiteboard&type0-0-3=substring&value0-0-3=nptl |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
uclibc-* does not support nptl yet. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
To me it would seem the ideal time to make the switch to NPTL is when |
| 30 |
the toolchain is gcc-4.x/glibc-2.3.6 are doing it by default and in |
| 31 |
stable. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives