Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:16:30 -0500 From: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> To: Craig Hawco <dest@syd.eastlink.ca> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: libc/libc_r changes require rebuild of threaded apps Message-ID: <20010124181630.C97550@electricjellyfish.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101241903540.39042-100000@process.dhs.org>; from dest@syd.eastlink.ca on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0400 References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010124130841.12976A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101241903540.39042-100000@process.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Craig Hawco wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > Using -pthread will prevent linking to libc and only link to > > libc_r. After the change I just committed, you need to link > > to both libc_r and libc (in that order), just like you would > > for a threaded application on just about any other OS (only > > ours is called libc_r instead of libpthread). > > Why not just call it libpthread for the sake of consistancy with other > OSes? I understand why it was called libc_r, but it no longer contains the > libc functionality. I know we like being nonconformist, but sometimes > consistancy is a Good Thing. Because libpthread will be written as part of the KSE project, and this way we have two different names for the different libraries, as opposed to "the new libpthread" and "the old libpthread". -- garrett rooney my pid is inigo montoya. rooneg@electricjellyfish.net you kill -9 my parent process. http://electricjellyfish.net/ prepare to vi. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010124181630.C97550>