Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:35:38 +0200
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:12:08PM +0100, joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:54:34PM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote:You promised the patch. Anyway, part of my patch that touched rtld_lock.c
* The current implementation of rtld has a problem both with
libpthread and libthr. It works only with libc_r.
It doesn't work correctly with libc_r. Concurrent dlopen and dlclose of
the same shared object doesn't work fully corretly ATM, but the patch
isn't the best approach either.
Joerg
shall be discarded.
Attachment:
pgpIGEq6mDF13.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: joerg
- dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- Next by Date: gprof front-end
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
