From owner-cvs-all Tue Oct 8 11:31: 3 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1B737B401; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF7843E3B; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:31:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.3/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g98IV0gQ047350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:31:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.3/8.12.5/Submit) id g98IV0rU047347; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:31:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:31:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200210081831.g98IV0rU047347@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Tim Robbins Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/usr.bin/c99 Makefile c99.1 c99.c In-Reply-To: <20021008122652.A63354@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <200210070937.g979bt5T039003@freefall.freebsd.org> <200210071549.g97Fnxwe039156@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20021008122652.A63354@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > I've added back the library name remapping code that I removed before I > committed it the first time. It now does this: > -lpthread -> -pthread I don't think that this is sufficient. I believe that `c99' must invoke `cc -pthread' (or whatever is necessary to get the right header definitions for threaded programs) always, since there is no requirement that `-l pthread' be specified on the command line for separate compilation, only for linkage. Should probably also ignore any explicit requests for `-l c'. > Is this ok? I didn't bother with -ltrace since we don't claim to support > those interfaces. I'd like to see all of them at least stubbed out, so that if we implement the interface later, we don't have to come back and touch `c99' again. For example: #if _POSIX_TRACE < 1 if (strcmp(lib, "trace") #if _POSIX_TRACE == 0 && sysconf(_SC_TRACE) > 0 #endif ) warnx("-l trace is not supported"); else #else errx(APPROPRIATE_VALUE, "-l trace needs to be implemented"); #endif -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message