Applied.
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Joshua Watt <jpewhac...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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) > >>
