From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 14 19:20:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id E6B6416A4E7; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: perforce@freebsd.org Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E8616A4DE; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jb@what-creek.com) Received: from what-creek.com (what-creek.com [66.111.37.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF8E43D46; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jb@what-creek.com) Received: by what-creek.com (Postfix, from userid 102) id 9AB1E78C1D; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:35 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:35 +0000 From: John Birrell To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20060714192035.GA10850@what-creek.com> References: <200607140506.k6E56odA034076@repoman.freebsd.org> <200607140959.56995.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607140959.56995.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Perforce Change Reviews Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 101512 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:20:39 -0000 On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:59:56AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 14 July 2006 01:06, John Birrell wrote: > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=101512 > > > > Change 101512 by jb@jb_freebsd2 on 2006/07/14 05:06:23 > > > > Use the proper way to tell gcc to link threaded. > > > > Note that there isn't a _single_ place in the FreeBSD source tree > > where threaded programs are built properly. No wonder that the > > ports people often get it wrong too! > > That's because the proper way currently defined in is "-lpthread" rather > than "-pthread" :-P Not according to the gcc developers. This was an issue discussed back when deischen proposed to get rid of the -pthread option. It was strongly opposed bu the gcc people because they wanted -pthread to be used so that gcc would just DTRT. There have been so many instances of ople attempting to mix the thread libraries over the years, causing strange link senarios -- none of which would have happeneded if -pthread had been used. -- John Birrell