From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: pthread object sizes for new archs
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:30:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1425976244.2199.1.camel@inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150310010733.GA26844@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2180 bytes --]
Hello,
Am Montag, den 09.03.2015, 21:07 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> How does this affect "glibc ABI compatibility"? Very little. As long
> as the sizes of the musl types are no larger than the sizes of the
> glibc types on the same arch, compatibility with glibc binary code
> (apps or libs) is not affected. All that is affected if the ABI of
> third-party libraries that use pthread types as members of public
> structs, and it only matters if you're calling such libraries using
> the glibc-derived ABI from code compiled against musl and using the
> affected structures. This is a very unusual usage case, not something
> we've ever prioritized supporting (it's broken in several other ways
> anyway, or at least it was historically), and IMO it's not worth
> severely bloating new archs that people actually want to use.
So to rephrase your arguments for that
- For the case I compile my code with the glibc ABI and link it with
musl: any struct that has pthread (or C11 thread) components in it
will potentially only use a smaller part of that pthread (C11)
component. In particular in that case when compiling with the glibc
ABI the compiler always generates a consistent offset for the
pthread components. Sounds ok.
But this only works because the glibc ABI doesn't export any
interface that has a visible combination of different pthread
components. Are we sure about that?
- For the case that I compile code with the musl ABI and link it with
glibc, this may (and probably will) cause out-of-bounds errors on
execution. I would very much prefer that big warnings are already
issued when doing such a link, or even better if such a link would
fail systematically.
I hope that there is nobody out there, who would be currently using
this model, perhaps unknowingly.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-10 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-10 1:07 Rich Felker
2015-03-10 1:19 ` Rich Felker
2015-03-10 8:30 ` Jens Gustedt [this message]
2015-03-10 18:24 ` Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1425976244.2199.1.camel@inria.fr \
--to=jens.gustedt@inria.fr \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).