[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4 |
Date: |
Thu, 10 May 2012 18:09:03 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) |
Hi!
On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:44:00 +0200, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 10 May 2012 11:17:01 +0800, a écrit :
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:38:41 +0000, Samuel Thibault
> > <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> > > The branch, t/hooks has been created
> > > at 56798c444bc584c118b69a3506c4050b34edc35f (commit)
> > >
> > > - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > commit 56798c444bc584c118b69a3506c4050b34edc35f
> > > Author: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
> > > Date: Sat Apr 21 21:03:12 2012 +0200
> > >
> > > Add link rules to sort hooks
> > >
> > > otherwise they are not properly recorded
> >
> > What is this about, what kind of issue does it address? (I'm afraid I
> > don't know a lot about this hooks stuff.)
>
> See the RUN_HOOK macro. It needs that all the symbols referenced by
> text_set_element are folded between the __stop__ and __start__ symbols,
> otherwise the for loop doesn't find them.
Thanks, that helps.
How did this work before, though? Due to __symbol_set_attribute
specifying weak linkage for the static case, I can see why we didn't get
undefined symbol errors when linking for the static case, but what about
the dynamic case? (And that'd mean the whole loop just was a no-op
before, right?)
Did you find this while working on a specific problem?
Also, what about data_set_element which is only used in hurd/dtable.c for
_hurd_fork_locks, which is manually run through twice in
sysdeps/mach/hurd/fork.c, but which I can't find start and stop markers
being defined for?
And, might something like that in fact be responsible for the issue I had
already seen months ago, but have just earlier today finally posted as
<http://www.bddebian.com:8888/~hurd-web/open_issues/fork_deadlock/>?
Lastly, _hurd_fork_setup_hook is only defined but never used, it seems.
Grüße,
Thomas
pgp0rtFpK7dHZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4, Thomas Schwinge, 2012/05/09
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4, Thomas Schwinge, 2012/05/10
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4, Samuel Thibault, 2012/05/10
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4,
Thomas Schwinge <=
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4, Svante Signell, 2012/05/10
- Re: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4, Samuel Thibault, 2012/05/10
- fork deadlock (was: [SCM] glibc maintenance branch, t/hooks, created. glibc-2.12-869-g56798c4), Thomas Schwinge, 2012/05/30