From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/11080 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: No definition of PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:22:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20170225212216.GX1520@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488057753 28357 195.159.176.226 (25 Feb 2017 21:22:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:22:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-11095-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Feb 25 22:22:29 2017 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 1chjnO-0006Xe-HD for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 22:22:26 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26025 invoked by uid 550); 25 Feb 2017 21:22:30 -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 26007 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2017 21:22:30 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:11080 Archived-At: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:16:39PM +0300, Леонид Юрьев wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 03:22:41PM +0000, Raphael Cohn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Whilst trying to compile ReOpenLDAP (https://github.com/ReOpen/ReOpenLDAP), > > a fork of OpenLDAP, I'm running into a wall. Some of the code wants a > > definition of PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP. musl doesn't define > > this; I suspect this is a non-portable glibc extension in pthread.h. Does > > any one have any ideas how I might workaround this? Is there an alternative > > construction that the code could use? > > Now fixed in 'devel' branch of ReOpenLDAP. > Please check it. If you want comments on the fix, can you provide a direct link to the commit? Rich