This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Async-signal-safe access to __thread variables from dlopen()ed libraries?


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/20/2013 01:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> * Work with the community to ensure consensus around an
>>>   acceptable solution.
>>
>> To be clear, Google already has a patch, as Paul mentioned in the
>> message that restarted this thread.  And frankly I thought this idea
>> was a slam dunk if it could be implemented, and I'm surprised to see
>> so much resistance.  At this point I have to say that the community
>> does not seem interested, so my inclination would be to skip it and
>> just do something that works internally.  That is disappointing but it
>> is quite possible that I am missing something about this issue.
>
> I'm disappointed that after a couple of email exchanges you appear to
> be about to call it quits.
>
> As far as I can tell we're having a good discussion around some points
> that I raised.
>
> What you're missing is that not everyone agrees with you, and that
> glibc is a consensus driven community. We don't want one Overlord that
> accepts patches from Google and checks them in as they see fit.

Obviously I don't think that.  I've been doing free software for
decades for many companies.  I wasn't saying "we're Google and you
should take our patch."  I was saying "this is a real problem, and
there is an existing patch, and you should work with that patch, or
rewrite it, to get it in."


> All I can say is that if you stick around we'll see it through to
> some kind of solution.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear it.  That is not the message I took away from
your earlier e-mail messages, which to me sounded like a set of
reasons not to fix this problem.

Paul said: we have a patch and asked "Is this something that has a
chance of being acceptable into trunk?"  I expected the answer to that
question to be "Yes, there is a good chance."  I did not expect the
answer to be "Being lazy and dumb I don't want to maintain a complex
TLS implementation, and being dumb means I can't."

Ian


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]