Re: missing weak symbol for pthread_equal in libc

On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 18:46 -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
> 
> >
> > I think pthread_equal should be added to libc.  I found it is used in
> > libxml2 and a link to that library fails without -pthread.
> 
> The pthread_foo() in libc are mainly for libc usage.  If applications
> want to use pthread_foo(), they really should be linking to the (a)
> threads library.  Look at it this way -- if we didn't use any pthread
> functions in libc, there wouldn't be _any_ pthread stubs in libc.
> Also, we could have used __libc_lock(), __libc_unlock(), etc, in
> libc and have the threads libraries override those functions instead
> of using _pthread_*().
> 
> pthread_equal() would be kinda harmless in libc, but you get my
> point above, no?

After some thought, I agree as pthread_equal is not used within libc,
but this brings up the question as to why there are any pthread_*
symbols in libc.

This is kind of a sore point for me.  I actually believe that there
should be no weak symbols of pthread_* in libc.  A program that uses
pthread_cond_init, for example, should not compile without the pthread
library.

weak symbols to the _pthread_* functions are fine as they are required
to provide thread-safe functionality within libs.  IMHO, it should be
setup as follows:

1) libpthread.so has routines _pthread_* and references as pthread_* (I
think they should be strong, but others think weak ;-) - suppose to be
funny, not offensive).

2) libc.so accesses those (_pthread_*) functions and has weak symbols
for the ones it use to work without libpthread.