Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:21:08 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Subject: Re: weak implementation of threads has problems - kse fix attached Message-ID: <40C54CC4.8090602@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1086671609.18374.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406080028070.11500-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <1086671609.18374.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 00:32, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote: >> >> >>>Up front, I'd like to make a few apologies: >>> >>>1) I am sorry for the length of this email. >>>2) Although some very valid opinions have been expressed, I respectfully >>>have to disagree. This email will hopefully strengthen my position. >> >>Please stop spamming multiple lists. >> >>No, I don't want to litter all our thread libraries with strong references. >>As I've said before, build your shared libraries correctly so they don't >>bring in the threads library. > > > In order to do this, I'm a strong proponent of making -pthread the > default PTHREAD_LIBS from 4.X and 5.X. This will do the right thing in > all cases, and reduces diffs among branches. What is keeping this from > happening from a threading standpoint? > > Joe > If you're going to change default behaviour like this then you need to do it before 5.3 and live with the change for the entire life of 5.x. I oppose changing it in 4.x. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40C54CC4.8090602>