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.