Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:37:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shared library version bump? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0605082032430.11616@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20060509000928.GA81282@what-creek.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0605081648270.11616@sea.ntplx.net> <445FB11C.1000309@samsco.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0605081700490.11616@sea.ntplx.net> <20060508.174813.89129442.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0605081954550.11616@sea.ntplx.net> <20060509000928.GA81282@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 May 2006, John Birrell wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:59:52PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> For libraries with symbol versioning, yes, that's the plan. >> To date, that's libc, libm, libthr, libpthread, and libthread_db. >> If other libraries become symbol versioned after 7.0 gets >> released, then those libraries will need another version >> bump. > > > This is a bit off-topic, but we need "mutex/rwlock held" functions > in libpthread. DTrace wants them. 8-) Are you sure you're not talking about mutex(9F) on Solaris ;-) I can see mutex_held in Solaris 10 /lib/libthread.so.1, but I don't see any rwlock_held or rwlock_owned. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0605082032430.11616>