Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:19:40 +1000 From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <20030920.190533.63048335.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > But it was completely removed. That sounds like the consensus wasn't > followed. Why was it then removed? It got discussed a bit more after the removal. That was the time when the GCC people got involved. The discussions where on FreeBSD public lists. > So we change -pthread to mean "link in the default threading package, > with whatever magic is necessary for that package" rather than "link > in libc_r instead of libc". A better way is to just link to the thread package you want. Keep knowledge of thread libraries outside GCC. There really is nothing simpler that adding -lc_r or -lpthread or -lmyownthreadlib. No magic required. > Then why was it completely removed? Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise. > At the very least, we should put it back as a noop. The timing on > this really sucks because it breaks the ports tree for an extended > period of time. While the fixes are simple, they haven't been made > yet. The fact that the tree is frozen makes it seem like a really bad > time to make the change. Yes, I think it should go back as a noop (mostly to satisfy the GCC people though). It sucks that the 4.9 pre-release instability has been so severe. It bit me so much I ended up using current instead. Major functionality changes to things like VM shouldn't be made so late in a branch. It is a point *NINE* release after all. Unfreeze the ports tree then! I'm not a ports committer, but I'm willing to help out fixing the problems on -current if that would help. Lets go forward, not back. -- John Birrell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030921021940.GB28195>