[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 18:55:06 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Norbert Lange <nolange79@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] sysconf implementing _SC_NPROCESSORS_(CONF|ONLN) incorrectly
* Rich Felker:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:08:52PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Rich Felker:
>>
>> >> For glibc, we had to change our logic to artificially inflate the CPU
>> >> to 2 if we cannot determine it, as the more conservative choice.
>> >
>> > Wait, you mean some software is abusing these interfaces to omit
>> > memory barriers or something? *facepalm* *sigh*
>>
>> Yes, indeed. glibc itself parses uname -v output for this purpose
>> (something we should probably remove, too).
>
> I don't understand. Certainly it's not executing a child process at
> runtime. Do you mean SYS_uname or are you talking about guessing
> number of cpus for parallel build at make time or something?
I meant the string that is printed by uname -v. The internal
implementation is of course different.
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.
