Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:20:05 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-doc-head@freebsd.org, svn-doc-all@freebsd.org, doc-committers@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r40970 - head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook Message-ID: <CAF6rxg=-8xmtA7vo%2BPRPfkOqYrUPX4ushAmh3ebi6FHs6ooy6Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <511D0D48.1090000@FreeBSD.org> References: <201302141435.r1EEZsXu042558@svn.freebsd.org> <511CF790.7040804@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgmY2s79rTi8=2uOif2Oq3r0mN1bAZE2JSgV51tKwmFgjA@mail.gmail.com> <511D0D48.1090000@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 February 2013 11:14, Alex Dupre <ale@freebsd.org> wrote: > Eitan Adler ha scritto: >> Because a program that uses pthreads *must* use -pthread to both >> compile and link and not use -lpthread. > > Is this the reason we have the following in bsd.port.mk? :-) > > PTHREAD_CFLAGS?= Every time the -pthread vs -lpthread discussion comes up this is brought up. I have no idea why this is, or who committed it. -pthread also defines certain preproccessor flags and may link in additional libraries. > We are not talking about correct programming standards, we are talking > about porting software on FreeBSD. Do we really want port maintainers to > do extra work for 'purity'? Perhaps if one is changing other things it doesn't hurt to also fix this. It isn't a big priority though. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxg=-8xmtA7vo%2BPRPfkOqYrUPX4ushAmh3ebi6FHs6ooy6Q>