On Wed, Apr 18, 2018, 05:20 Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/17/2018 11:10 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 22:50 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> On 04/17/2018 06:24 PM, Joshua Watt wrote: > >>> Ping? I'd really like to get this in binutils, which apparently > >>> requires getting it here first. > >> > >> I think it would help if you mentioned what this is and > >> what is the intended use case. > > > > Ah, that would probably be helpful! Yes, this was discussed on the > > binutils mailing list, see: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2018-02/msg00260.html > > > > In short summary: the gold linker doesn't currently build for mingw, > > but only because it is attempting to link against libpthread > > incorrectly on that platform. Instead of bringing in more specialized > > logic to account for that, I opted to include the autotools > > ax_pthread.m4 macro (this patch) that automatically handles discovering > > pthreads on a wide variety of platforms and compilers, including mingw. > > > > binutils slaves its config/ directory to GCC, so the patch is required > > to be committed here first, and then it will be ported over there. > > Thanks, that helps indeed. > > I agree that the ax_pthread.m4 approach makes sense. Better to use > a field-tested macro than reinvent the wheel. We're using other > files from the autoconf-archive archive already, for similar reasons > (e.g., config/ax_check_define.m4, and gdb/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4). > > Since GCC won't be using it (yet at least, but it's conceivable it > could make use of it in future), there should be no harm in > installing it even if GCC is in stage 4, IMO. > > I don't have the authority to approve it, though. > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >
Ping (again) >
