Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:24:43 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Sebastian Kemper <sebastian_ml@....net> 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) call. > 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. OK. Rich
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.