Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:42:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309211739450.22905-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030921125422.I22563@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, John Birrell wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:25:09AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > > I am a little confused about one thing though. What is going to > > > happen to third party apps that use -pthread that aren't compiled > > > through the ports? > > > > They need to replace -pthread with their thread library of choice > > (e.g. -lc_r or -lpthread). > > Errrr... I'm not sure this is an optimal solution. There is an awful > lot of software out there which expects -pthread to "just work." > Wouldn't it make more sense to default it to one thing or the other, > then make it configurable (isn't this what libmap.conf is supposed to > help with)? We've already been over this before. The problem is not as bad as you think, and there are other platforms that don't have -pthread. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10309211739450.22905-100000>