On 09.07.2012, at 21:23, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Max Horn <m...@quendi.de> writes: > >>> would it be feasible for the purpose of >>> the check to tweak the definition of "works" used in the loop so that >>> it considers the warning as "not working"? >> >> That would be possible, and probably a good idea. But it is also >> completely orthogonal to my patch. Indeed, if done without my >> patch,... > > No, I was suggesting it as a possible way to make the addition of "" > order independent (which you said is impossible in your initial > reply).
This would make things "order independent" for the specific subset of pthread implementations git supports right now. But there are systems where e.g. both -lpthreads and -lpthread work (link correctly, produce no warnings), but only one provides a POSIX compliant pthread implementation. For such systems, order will play a role, no matter what. Granted, git does not yet support such systems (with regards to pthreads, at least) at all. But all in all, I don't understand why this order independence seems to be so important? To me it seems merely an illusion anyway, not worth the extra effort. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
