RE: [BUG] Unix Builds Requires Pthread Support (was [PATCH v4 00/12] Simple IPC Mechanism)

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On May 18, 2021 4:24 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 01:46:46PM -0400, Randall S. Becker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:48:36, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>>
>> >Here is V4 of my "Simple IPC" series. It addresses Gábor's comment
>> >WRT shutting down the server to make unit tests more predictable on CI servers.
>> >(https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210213093052.GJ1015009@szeder.dev)
>>
>> I missed this at the time, but it appears that ipc-unix-socket.c
>> forces a dependency on pthreads for Git under Unix-like platforms.
>> This is probably not a correct assumption (or likely intended), but
>> causes git to no longer build on NonStop x86 and ia64 as of
>> 2.32.0-rc0. I am not suggesting undoing this, but amending to make the
>> change more sensitive to a lack of pthread support.
>> pthread_sigmask() showed up as an undefined external:
>
>Hrm. Usually we do not assume that threads are available. For "async"
>stuff via run-command, we allow it to be implemented via fork(), and insist that the async process talk back to us only over a pipe
>descriptor (so it works whether it's a thread or a separate process).
>In cases where we use worker threads for performance (like index-pack or pack-objects), we just run a single "thread" instead, waiting for
>it to complete.
>
>In the simple-ipc API, there's an explicit "async" interface. But it's not clear to me how rich it expects the communication with the caller to
>be (i.e., whether we could get away with the fork() trick here). Or if it would be OK for the threading to remain an implementation detail,
>with one "worker" upon whom we wait for completion.
>
>> **** ERROR **** [1210]:
>>    libgit.a(ipc-unix-socket.o): In function `thread_block_sigpipe':
>>    ipc-unix-socket.o(.text+0xb87): unresolved reference to pthread_sigmask.
>>
>> On NonStop, pthread_sigmask is defined in -lput or -lspt, which are
>> not used in our build – and would cause a bunch of other issues if referenced. The build does define NO_PTHREADS.
>
>So yeah, you hit that problem because you only have a sort-of-pthreads-ish case. But it seems like a system which truly has no pthread
>support at all and defines NO_PTHREADS to tell us so will have much more of its compilation broken (because it's also missing obvious bits
>like pthread_create()).
>
>We already make simple-ipc compilation conditional on NO_UNIX_SOCKETS. I think we could probably just do the same for
>NO_PTHREADS?
>
>Something like:
>
>diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>index 3a2d3c80a8..bd7fe0fc24 100644
>--- a/Makefile
>+++ b/Makefile
>@@ -1687,14 +1687,20 @@ ifdef NO_UNIX_SOCKETS  else
> 	LIB_OBJS += unix-socket.o
> 	LIB_OBJS += unix-stream-server.o
>+endif
>+
>+# All simple-ipc requires threads, and then individual # mechanisms
>+have their own requirements.
>+ifndef NO_PTHREADS
>+	BASIC_CFLAGS += -DSUPPORTS_SIMPLE_IPC
> 	LIB_OBJS += compat/simple-ipc/ipc-shared.o
>+ifndef NO_UNIX_SOCKETS
> 	LIB_OBJS += compat/simple-ipc/ipc-unix-socket.o
> endif
>-
> ifdef USE_WIN32_IPC
>-	LIB_OBJS += compat/simple-ipc/ipc-shared.o
> 	LIB_OBJS += compat/simple-ipc/ipc-win32.o  endif
>+endif
>
> ifdef NO_ICONV
> 	BASIC_CFLAGS += -DNO_ICONV
>diff --git a/simple-ipc.h b/simple-ipc.h index dc3606e30b..0f58be7945 100644
>--- a/simple-ipc.h
>+++ b/simple-ipc.h
>@@ -4,11 +4,6 @@
> /*
>  * See Documentation/technical/api-simple-ipc.txt
>  */
>-
>-#if defined(GIT_WINDOWS_NATIVE) || !defined(NO_UNIX_SOCKETS) -#define SUPPORTS_SIMPLE_IPC -#endif
>-
> #ifdef SUPPORTS_SIMPLE_IPC
> #include "pkt-line.h"

I'm not sure this is going to work. The platform *does* support UNIX sockets (and not disabled) and pthreads, but we have disabled pthreads in our build. So in the above, ipc-unix-socket.o will be included at the ifndef NO_UNIX_SOCKETS. If NO_PTHREADS, not being pedantic, there should be no pthread references, regardless of other considerations. Although, at some point, I hope to resolve why pthreads (PUT) is having issues in git on the platform but not at this point.