Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Davidsen wrote:

> He didn't say static linking he said static library. I assume he meant a
> .a lib instead of a .so lib. One which has elements which are made part of
> the executable instead of being part of a shared library.

And in what way does this not match what I say?  The content of the DSO
and the archive is identical functionality-wise and therefore none of
this ever has any influence on whether futexes are used or not.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+w9ls2ijCOnn/RHQRAsfAAJ9sSbudcXdNSHYAB6ICm/fXWRhuQQCgqmMD
cwxSzwuFEeeS6ACGonakUy8=
=+/L9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----