From: Matt Rice <ratmice@gmail.com>
To: John Spencer <maillist-gdbpatches@barfooze.de>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: wrong assumptions about pthread_t being numeric
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 02:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACTLOFom_n_BrTL28cKOK24-_Qcn3u_uwhGwt-Oiv+YOd6RHwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E73F1A4.2020606@barfooze.de>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM, John Spencer
<maillist-gdbpatches@barfooze.de> wrote:
> On 09/17/2011 02:30 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 17 September 2011 00:13:10, John Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/17/2011 01:00 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These are only built natively on solaris and aix respectively, so
>>>> let's just leave them alone.
>>>>
>>> I expected it to be desirable for a product in industrial use to be
>>> standard-compliant and not invoking undefined behavior.
>>
>> Those files are tied to those platforms' thread_db/libc implementations.
>> There's absolutely no need to handle some other hipotetical libc that
>> defines pthread_t diferently there. If it appears, we'll handle it.
>
>> Chances are, some other changes would be necessary to make it really
>> work, not just build.
>>
>
> exactly. for example in musl's case it is wrong to compare the underlying
> type (which is a struct pointer) with 0.
FWIW, hurd used to do something similar (well, in its case 0 was a
valid, pthread_t, the first one in fact),
I believe that enough things broke gthr from gcc, libobjc, possibly
gdb (don't remember it though..) that they eventually changed their
pthread_t even though it was compliant...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-17 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-16 23:01 John Spencer
2011-09-16 23:16 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-17 0:31 ` John Spencer
2011-09-17 1:05 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-17 1:23 ` John Spencer
2011-09-17 2:29 ` Matt Rice [this message]
2011-09-17 6:47 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-09-18 0:11 ` John Spencer
2011-09-29 2:31 ` John Spencer
2011-09-29 8:39 ` Kai Tietz
2011-10-01 1:08 ` John Spencer
2011-09-29 11:10 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-17 15:29 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-17 15:47 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-01 1:02 ` John Spencer
2011-10-01 2:00 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-01 9:00 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-10-01 9:14 ` Kevin Pouget
2011-10-05 8:02 ` John Spencer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACTLOFom_n_BrTL28cKOK24-_Qcn3u_uwhGwt-Oiv+YOd6RHwQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ratmice@gmail.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=maillist-gdbpatches@barfooze.de \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox