From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 29 14:06:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6B916A403; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:06:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sakura.ninth-nine.com (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E2843CA5; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:06:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nadesico.ninth-nine.com (nadesico.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.122]) by sakura.ninth-nine.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NinthNine) with SMTP id kATE6aSt038586; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:06:37 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:06:36 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura To: Mikhail Teterin Message-Id: <20061129230636.aef46d92.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200611271114.42304@aldan> References: <20061127222709.aa35ab22.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200611271032.18366@aldan> <20061128005936.5ae4b851.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200611271114.42304@aldan> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.3.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (sakura.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121]); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:06:37 +0900 (JST) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura Subject: Re: ports/devel/icu: PTHREAD_LIBS clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:06:59 -0000 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:14:41 -0500 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > =         I don't think trying to use multiple threads at the same time. > =         But if applications use libthr, libraries must use libthr, too. > You are right about the dangers of mixing different thread implementations, > but library may also be not using threads _at all_. -lm, for example, is > happily used by many threaded programs without itself being thread-aware. I understand your ideal, think so too. However, in fact, it is unrealistic environment:-(. > (If anything, a library, even a thread-aware one, should, arguably, not be > explicitly linking with any thread implementation -- this way, it will use, > whatever implementation the application is using. But that's a different > topic...) Yeah! :-)