Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:54:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210051090.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, John Birrell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:05:33PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > 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? > > This subject *has* been discussed both within FreeBSD and with the GCC > maintainers. I think that the consensus from those who chose to participate > in that discussion was that -pthread would be a noop on FreeBSD. > > > 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. > > Having -pthread as a noop doesn't fix the ports breakage. For years ports > have worked on the basis that libc_r was linked to get user-space threads > *instead* of libc. This was the result of certain people in the FreeBSD > developer community not wanting thread stubs in libc. Since libc was > linked by default (unless -nostdlib was specified), it was necessary to > have gcc know to use libc_r instead. That is why the -pthread argument > was added. FWIW, Linux and the other BSDs didn't have a -pthread argument > back then. > > Now that libc has thread stubs in libc (in current), there is no longer > any need to have gcc know about any of the thread libraries. That's a > good thing IMO. The FSF wants GCC to have a -pthread argument on all > platforms and they are happy to have it as a noop. > > I doubt that there would ever be a good time to make this change. The fact > that 4.9 has been delayed is making the problem seem worse because people > can't commit fixes to the tree. While 4.9 is delayed (due to the PAE > instability which never should have been allowed), the ports tree should > be unlocked. The fixes are simple. Make them and move on. I couldn't agree more :-) There should be no reason not to commit fixes to unbreak a port. 5.2-RELEASE has to happen relatively soon also. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210051090.26520-100000>