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 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
