From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Jan 24  9:57:34 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 312A637B400; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0OHv1t76723;
	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:57:01 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com)
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
	ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: libc/libc_r changes require rebuild of threaded apps 
In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> 
   of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:36:17 EST." <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010124123019.6201A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> 
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:57:01 -0800
Message-ID: <76719.980359021@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> What's not clear ;-)  Use -lc_r instead of -pthread.
> 
> 	gcc -Wall -o foo foo.c -lc_r
> 
> The old way was:
> 
> 	gcc -Wall -D_THREAD_SAFE -o foo foo.c -pthread

Hmmmm.  And does the -pthread argument do anything anymore?  If not,
why not have it default to simply linking in libc_r for POLA's sake
and ease of transition?  If it does do something different now,
perhaps you could explain what that is for all of us who are also
confused. :)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message