Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:05:51 +0100 From: "Karl H. Beckers" <karl.h.beckers@gmx.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threading in FreeBSD (acx_pthreads) Message-ID: <1202166351.6212.10.camel@hosaka> In-Reply-To: <200802041456.30785.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <5913.192.9.112.196.1202124683.squirrel@www.our-isp.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802041157030.13899@sea.ntplx.net> <58004.192.9.112.196.1202145786.squirrel@www.our-isp.org> <200802041456.30785.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Montag, den 04.02.2008, 14:56 -0500 schrieb John Baldwin: [...] > > And I take it that (c) is what your ports system is doing and the > > discussion is around whether that's the right thing to do? > > Just -pthread, no -lc_r. On 4.x -pthread expands to -D_REENTRANT -lc_r (or > something like that). On 5.x+ -pthread expands to -lpthread. IOW, -pthread > always expands to the appropriate system default. If you want to use libthr > on 6.x then you can either explicitly say -lthr instead of -pthread or rename > libpthread to libkse and symlink libpthread to libthr. (Or use libmap.conf > to map libpthread to libthr, etc.). > > Also, FWIW DES, at work when folks did benchmarks for Java stuff on 6.x, > libkse had better performance than libthr. Granted, Java is a bit more of an > odd benchmark b/c it is thread happy and thus more suited to a M:N model than > most other threading workloads. > OK, that clears some of that up. Any idea what the original author of acx_pthreads has meant by -lkthread and lthread? (Am trying to ask him himself, but his spamassassin doesn't like me ;) ) Thanks, Karl.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1202166351.6212.10.camel>