From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 18:05:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07AA16A4B3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD7443FDF; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:05:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h8L15VGA017877; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:05:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:05:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20030920.190533.63048335.imp@bsdimp.com> To: deischen@freebsd.org, eischen@vigrid.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20030920.164621.68039520.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@freebsd.org cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:05:33 -0000 In message: Daniel Eischen writes: : On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > In message: <3F6BF02F.9040707@schmalzbauer.de> : > Harald Schmalzbauer writes: : > : Not only the -pthread removement broke countless ports (some of them are : > : > Maybe I missed the reason why FreeBSD needs to be unique wrt threading : > programs and not have -pthread... : : Because -pthread allows selection of one specific threadling library, : not multiple. It is also unnecessary since the library is specified : as a link option, not a compiler option. In the future, -pthread : will be a NOOP, but it suits us now to have it cause an error so : that ports that don't honor PTHREAD_LIBS can be found and fixed. Why does -pthread necessarily force selection of one specific threading library? All it means is that it is that the program uses posix threads, at least traditionally. How FreeBSD causes that to happen is an interesting implementation detail for some, but irrelvant for most ports. Couldn't -pthread be made to give the user the default threading package, and for those that matter a more specific one can be specified? It is insane to have FreeBSD be different than all other systems for this trivial reason. Why fix everthing in the world when allowing -pthread to be a noop would solve the problem? Seems like we're being overly picky for no real gain. I guess I just don't understand. Warner