That doesn't seem to make any sense - especially since I spent a bit of time trying to rebuild glibc
for Redhat9 until I learned about SPEC files and how to utilize the GNU autoconf/aclocal/autoheader
combinations to rebuild it and finding references to the fact that Redhat9 used NPTL [in the kernel and glibc].
Until I configured NPTL and used the SPEC file to properly patch/rebuild the glibc [with some other patches I
needed], the resulting glibc would not work with Redhat9 x86 binaries.
I'm just surprised that the glibc SPEC file for fedora now no longer configures for NPTL threads even
though the kernel utilizes them. With NPTL being linuxthreads compatible, maybe the glibc for fedora uses
linuxthreads to avoid issues with some applications? Just want to be sure that the glibc SPEC files are accurate
for x86. In this case, I really don't have any reasons to rebuild glibc, but was seeing if optimizations would
make any difference [using athlon-mp and -O4]. Just seems odd not to have glibc not configured to
use NPTL threads [maybe the source rpm is out of date/incorrect?].
Thanks, Rakesh Patel.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 10:30:37PM -0500, Rakesh Patel wrote:
I was attempting to rebuild glibc from the source rpm and noticed the spec file does not
utilize nptl and does not specify it as an addon, but instead uses the linuxthreads addon.
The Fedora Core 1 announcements indicate that NPTL is used (and the kernel sources
do utilize NPTL). Is the the glibc spec file accurate? I used both the original glibc src
rpm and the updated rpm [using the updated binary rpm] and both build without NPTL support.
Did you use --target i686 ? glibc*.i386.rpm certainly doesn't provide NPTL, NPTL doesn't support i386 architecture.
Jakub
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
