libpthread version bump

[Daniel Eischen]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Peter Wemm wrote:

> The only other idea that springs to mind is to use dlsym() to test for
> the symbol, but that has its own serious problems.  If the pragma weak
> stuff works, then I'd be happy with that.
>
> The only gotcha is that we still have to test for the possibility that
> the *base syscalls return EINVAL..  This will happen for booting old
> kernel.old files, and I'm not sure that current is quite robust enough
> yet that people aren't going to want to be able to rewind a few months.
>
> So, the options are:
> 1) test for have_gsbase using weak (or dlsym).
> 2) As previously suggested, add implemenations to libc.so.5 and pick
> them up via a fresh compat5x.  We can add an implementation to
> libc.so.5.  Since they wouldn't be used on 5.x, there is no risk of
> breaking anything.  The functions would only do something when running
> the libc.so.5 library with a 5.x application on 6.x.
>
> I have a slight preference for #2, but that would mean adding two tiny
> (but otherwise unused) libc.so functions very late in the cycle.  If
> re@ would allow it, I'd like that.  But the #pragma weak option also
> works for me.
>
> #2 can also make it a little easier to run 5.x i386 binaries on amd64 -
> we could kill of most of those nasty ifdefs.
>
> #1 would end up something like:
>   #pragma weak i386_set_gsbase
>   #pragma weak i386_get_gsbase
>   static void (*have_get_gsbase)(void) = i386_get_gsbase;
>   static void (*have_set_gsbase)(void *) = i386_set_gsbase;
>   if (have_i386_get_gsbase == NULL || have_get_gsbase() == -1) {
>     use_ldt();
>   } else {
>     use_gsbase();
>   }
> I think that is sufficient to test if the symbols are present and test
> if they work at runtime...

I worked up a quick patch.  It compiles, but it will be some time
before I can try it.

  http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/libpthread.diffs

-- 
DE