This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug malloc/16159] malloc_printerr() deadlock, when calling malloc_printerr() again
- From: "neleai at seznam dot cz" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:23:09 +0000
- Subject: [Bug malloc/16159] malloc_printerr() deadlock, when calling malloc_printerr() again
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-16159-131 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16159
--- Comment #12 from Ondrej Bilka <neleai at seznam dot cz> ---
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:12:53PM +0000, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16159
>
> --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, bugdal at aerifal dot cx wrote:
>
> > Carlos, this is yet another reason why dlopen'ing libgcc_s is simply the wrong
> > thing to do, and libgcc_eh should be static-linked into libc. (The other big
>
> Static-linking libgcc_eh into any glibc library is a bad idea because it
> complicates bootstrapping: it means glibc built with an initial bootstrap
> compiler (which was built without glibc headers available, implying full
> EH functionality is not present in libgcc) is not identical to glibc built
> with a compiler built using full shared glibc and headers. (It's *also* a
> bad idea because new compilers can start using new DWARF unwind opcodes
> that an old copy of the unwind code won't understand, causing problems
> using new programs with old glibc.)
>
Why did you jump from dlopening to static linking? Dynamic linking would
work and if there is concern that user does not have one we could
provide a stub implementation and function to test if we deal with stub
or real one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.