On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 09:42 -0400, solar wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:35 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > So... What do we say to going nptl across the board for 2006.0 on every
> > platform that supports 2.6 headers?  This would, of course, require
> > approval from each arch team, but I'm sure ppc and amd64 are chomping at
> > the bits for this one, and it sounds like the x86 arch team is wanting
> > it also.
> 
> ppc32 - has problems with nptl when not using linuxthreads (oddly it
> works with ASLR in place however).
> 
> x86 - sometimes has problems with *some* clients and the RTLD. 
> Seems to be a problem with ld.so paths and having intermixed 
> nptl/shared/static handling but I'm not sure. I have had nothing but 
> success on x86 with it, but others seem to.
> 
> amd64 - Seems to support it well.
> 
> mips, sparc, ia64, m68k, arm - (don't know)
> 
> Sadly we don't really have any NPTL guru's (know of any?) that are able
> to quickly fix nptl bugs so they just keep piling up in bugzilla.
> 
> There remain outstanding bugs with nptl problems.
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=product&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=nptl&field0-0-1=component&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-1=nptl&field0-0-2=short_desc&type0-0-2=substring&value0-0-2=nptl&field0-0-3=status_whiteboard&type0-0-3=substring&value0-0-3=nptl
> 
> uclibc-* does not support nptl yet.
> 
> To me it would seem the ideal time to make the switch to NPTL is when
> the toolchain is gcc-4.x/glibc-2.3.6 are doing it by default and in
> stable.

This actually stems from a discussion on #gentoo-x86 where Azarah was
discussing how we need to switch to nptl for default specifically for
gcc-4.x/glibc-2.3.6 to be able to go stable.  I'm just trying to get a
conversation going here on what pitfalls we might run across on various
platforms and if we're ready to make that plunge.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux