| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
originally the namespace-infringing "large file support" interfaces
were included as part of glibc-ABI-compat, with the intent that they
not be used for linking, since our off_t is and always has been
unconditionally 64-bit and since we usually do not aim to support
nonstandard interfaces when there is an equivalent standard interface.
unfortunately, having the symbols present and available for linking
caused configure scripts to detect them and attempt to use them
without declarations, producing all the expected ill effects that
entails.
as a result, commit 2dd8d5e1b8ba1118ff1782e96545cb8a2318592c was made
to prevent this, using macros to redirect the LFS64 names to the
standard names, conditional on _GNU_SOURCE or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE.
however, this has turned out to be a source of further problems,
especially since g++ defines _GNU_SOURCE by default. in particular,
the presence of these names as macros breaks a lot of valid code.
this commit removes all the LFS64 symbols and replaces them with a
mechanism in the dynamic linker symbol lookup failure path to retry
with the spurious "64" removed from the symbol name. in the future,
if/when the rest of glibc-ABI-compat is moved out of libc, this can be
removed.
|
|
this further reduces the number of source files which need to include
libc.h and thereby be potentially exposed to libc global state and
internals.
this will also facilitate further improvements like adding an inline
fast-path, if we want to do so later.
|
|
the LFS64 macro was not self-documenting and barely saved any
characters. simply use weak_alias directly so that it's clear what's
being done, and doesn't depend on a header to provide a strange macro.
|
|
|
|
to deal with the fact that the public headers may be used with pre-c99
compilers, __restrict is used in place of restrict, and defined
appropriately for any supported compiler. we also avoid the form
[restrict] since older versions of gcc rejected it due to a bug in the
original c99 standard, and instead use the form *restrict.
|
|
i did some testing trying to switch malloc to use the new internal
lock with priority inheritance, and my malloc contention test got
20-100 times slower. if priority inheritance futexes are this slow,
it's simply too high a price to pay for avoiding priority inversion.
maybe we can consider them somewhere down the road once the kernel
folks get their act together on this (and perferably don't link it to
glibc's inefficient lock API)...
as such, i've switch __lock to use malloc's implementation of
lightweight locks, and updated all the users of the code to use an
array with a waiter count for their locks. this should give optimal
performance in the vast majority of cases, and it's simple.
malloc is still using its own internal copy of the lock code because
it seems to yield measurably better performance with -O3 when it's
inlined (20% or more difference in the contention stress test).
|
|
|
