Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: deischen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <200309231545.h8NFjMVV027788@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309231545.h8NFjMVV027788>