On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John Birrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : 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. > > Yes. However, it is clear that the pain level wasn't adequately > disclosed at the time of the removal. > > : > 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. > > Works for me. > > : > Then why was it completely removed? > : > : Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise. > > Time has proven the "not needed" part was premature. > > : > 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). > > Sounds like we're in violent agreement.
But you seem to thing -pthread == NOOP unbreaks ports ;-) -- Dan Eischen _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
