From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 23 19:48:23 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3E40C16A4B3; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0CFF74400F; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h8O2lbgG001212;
	Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20030924024354.GA44314@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309232244110.246-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: ports@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: Initial list of ports that fail due to -pthread
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:48:23 -0000

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, John Birrell wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:33:43PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Won't these ports still need to be fixed to look at
> > PTHREAD_{LIBS,CFLAGS} though, since the correct values for 4.x and 5.x
> > will still be different?
> 
> Not if -pthread remains. Internally gcc would link to a different
> library, but most ports won't see that.

The problem will be with ports that somehow get -lc_r
without going through PTHREAD_LIBS.  And for those that
use both -lc_r and PTHREAD_LIBS, they'll build but won't
run correctly.

BTW, I just fixed zebedee (started at bottom of list).

-- 
Dan Eischen