From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10743 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Robust shared mutexes? Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 17:24:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20161126222443.GV1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20161126214943.GA2635@hotdamn.lan> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480199100 9857 195.159.176.226 (26 Nov 2016 22:25:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:25:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Sebastian Kemper To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10756-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Nov 26 23:24:55 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cAlOw-0001Y7-90 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:24:54 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11476 invoked by uid 550); 26 Nov 2016 22:24:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 11442 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2016 22:24:56 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161126214943.GA2635@hotdamn.lan> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10743 Archived-At: 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