Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:41:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210033230.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030920.190533.63048335.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> > Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> writes: > : On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : > In message: <3F6BF02F.9040707@schmalzbauer.de> > : > Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> writes: > : > : Not only the -pthread removement broke countless ports (some of them are > : > > : > Maybe I missed the reason why FreeBSD needs to be unique wrt threading > : > programs and not have -pthread... > : > : Because -pthread allows selection of one specific threadling library, > : not multiple. It is also unnecessary since the library is specified > : as a link option, not a compiler option. In the future, -pthread > : will be a NOOP, but it suits us now to have it cause an error so > : that ports that don't honor PTHREAD_LIBS can be found and fixed. > > Why does -pthread necessarily force selection of one specific > threading library? All it means is that it is that the program uses > posix threads, at least traditionally. How FreeBSD causes that to > happen is an interesting implementation detail for some, but irrelvant > for most ports. Couldn't -pthread be made to give the user the > default threading package, and for those that matter a more specific > one can be specified? The default threading package when building in the ports system is PTHREAD_LIBS. You can't make -pthread select that. PTHREAD_LIBS can be overridden in /etc/make.conf or the environment. If you want to argue between which you'd prefer, PTHREAD_LIBS or -pthread, that's fine, but PTHREAD_LIBS is what we currently have and what I'm going by. > It is insane to have FreeBSD be different than all other systems for > this trivial reason. Why fix everthing in the world when allowing > -pthread to be a noop would solve the problem? Seems like we're being > overly picky for no real gain. I guess I just don't understand. Allowing -pthread to be a noop doesn't necessarily solve the problem right now. Ports check for -pthread and use it without also using PTHREAD_LIBS, so they would still be broke. Ports that are libraries that use -pthread won't break when -pthread is NOOP'd, but non-threaded applications that use those libraries may fail to link. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210033230.26520-100000>