Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:24:43 -0500
From: Rich Felker <>
Cc: Sebastian Kemper <>
Subject: Re: Robust shared mutexes?

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:49:44PM +0100, Sebastian Kemper wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'm cross-compiling for OpenWRT/LEDE and have this variable
> apr_cv_mutex_robust_shared. Should I set it to yes or no with musl? I've
> searched around but found conflicting infos. One post said there's no
> shared mutex support in musl

Do you have a link for that? If there's incorrect information I'd like
to reply and see if it can be corrected.

> and the other said there is. And if there
> is support for it then I'm not sure how robust it is :D

musl fully supports robust mutexes, process-shared or not. They are a
requirement for current POSIX.

> Other variables that I think are set correctly but if you disagreed I'd
> be happy to hear about:
> ac_cv_va_copy=yes

Yes. This is true for any conforming C implementation.

> ac_cv_func_realloc_0_nonnull=yes
> ac_cv_func_malloc_0_nonnull=yes

Yes. These are not strict requirements, but if malloc(0) returns a
null pointer, behavior of realloc becomes a huge mess. All reasonable
implementations should return a unique pointer for each malloc(0)

> ac_cv_func_setpgrp_void=yes

Yes, this is a POSIX requirement.

> ac_cv_func_pthread_rwlock_init=yes

Yes. So is this.

> Please keep me on CC if you reply as I'm not subscribed to this list.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.