From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 23 08:45:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EC316A4B3; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from motgate2.mot.com (motgate2.mot.com [136.182.1.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDDD43FE5; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:45:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com) Received: from az33exr02.mot.com (az33exr02.mot.com [10.64.251.232]) by motgate2.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate2) with ESMTP id h8NFjYBe022464; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:45:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (latour.rsch.comm.mot.com [145.1.80.116])h8NFjWSt004963; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:32 -0500 Received: from latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (localhost.rsch.comm.mot.com [127.0.0.1])h8NFjMgt027789; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com) Received: (from rittle@localhost) by latour.rsch.comm.mot.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8NFjMVV027788; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Loren James Rittle Message-Id: <200309231545.h8NFjMVV027788@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> To: current@freebsd.org Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs cc: deischen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:45:37 -0000 > I'm all for removing it, but our FSF GCC maintainer thought > it better to make it a NOOP. We're just going by his advice. I agreed that making -pthread == NOOP was probably better than the ~Sept 5 -CURRENT system compiler however that was not my full advice. In my view (and thus my advice), it is the stated collective opinion of the FSF gcc development team that -pthread should exist for all gcc ports which support POSIX threads. This is true even if not well documented. It would be best if adding the switch actually implied everything to support threads. If adding the -pthread switch is a NOOP to gcc but users could later add (e.g.): LD_PRELOAD=libc_r.so (or one of the newer choices) and not break anything, then I think that would be fully acceptable and meet the specification of the switch. This would be very cool in that you could test/run against multiple thread libraries without a re-link. If adding the -pthread switch is a NOOP to gcc but users must also add -lc_r (or one of the newer choices) for correct operation, then I think making it a NOOP is a bad idea and I attempted to state so. Regards, Loren