Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional

• Next message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
• Previous message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: ahc_linux_map_seg() compile/style/data corruption fixes"
• In reply to: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Next in thread: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Reply: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Reply: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:19:42PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
[CONFIG_FUTEX]
> If this is what is wanted (and I don't really think it's useful is a MMU
> is available) you should explain the consequences in the help text.
> Basically, no current and future glibc version has the slightest chance
> of working.

Is this also the case, if I don't want threading at all on my
system? Does glibc still have a seperate static library for this,
or should I revert to dietlibc in these cases?

Thanks & Regards

Ingo Oeser
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
• Previous message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: ahc_linux_map_seg() compile/style/data corruption fixes"
• In reply to: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Next in thread: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Reply: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Reply: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:57 EST