Re: [uml-devel] Re: pthreads?

[BlaisorBlade <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>]

Alle 12:51, lunedì 15 settembre 2003, Henrik Nordstrom ha scritto:
> mån 2003-09-15 klockan 11.28 skrev Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > No, UML only _uses_ those symbols, libpthread redefines them in a way
> > that breaks UML.
>
> uml redefines several libc symbols which does conflict with pthreads.

> The most notable is that uml overrides malloc/free but I think there is
> also a few other overrides due to kernel library calls having the same
> name as their libc equivalent calls. If you are to link with pthreads
> each of these must be verified to be threads safe to the same level as
> their libc/pthreads counterpart. On the positive side most kernel lib
> calls most likely are threads safe due to the multithreaded nature of
> the kernel, but any lib call making use of locking or other kernel
> constructs will almost certainly fail or cause problems if ever invoked
> from a pthread.
There is(from long time) the idea to make possible turning UML into a library.
This means that solving this issue in UML is worthwhile. I.e., let's suppose 
that the malloc's conflict. Then, Uml will use uml_malloc, which will be is 
own version, and everyone will be happy. Using a -Dmalloc=uml_malloc would 
make unnecessary changing the source. This is a quick idea(and details about 
the exact names are to be tuned), but I hope it's useful.
-- 
cat <<EOSIGN
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux Kernel 2.4.21/2.6.0-test on an i686; Linux registered user n. 292729
EOSIGN



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel