From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 21:54:29 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 D4A8216A4B3 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183D443FE0 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:54:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h8L4sBgG029512; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:54:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:54:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: John Birrell In-Reply-To: <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org 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 04:54:29 -0000 On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, John Birrell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:05:33PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > 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? > > This subject *has* been discussed both within FreeBSD and with the GCC > maintainers. I think that the consensus from those who chose to participate > in that discussion was that -pthread would be a noop on FreeBSD. > > > 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. > > Having -pthread as a noop doesn't fix the ports breakage. For years ports > have worked on the basis that libc_r was linked to get user-space threads > *instead* of libc. This was the result of certain people in the FreeBSD > developer community not wanting thread stubs in libc. Since libc was > linked by default (unless -nostdlib was specified), it was necessary to > have gcc know to use libc_r instead. That is why the -pthread argument > was added. FWIW, Linux and the other BSDs didn't have a -pthread argument > back then. > > Now that libc has thread stubs in libc (in current), there is no longer > any need to have gcc know about any of the thread libraries. That's a > good thing IMO. The FSF wants GCC to have a -pthread argument on all > platforms and they are happy to have it as a noop. > > I doubt that there would ever be a good time to make this change. The fact > that 4.9 has been delayed is making the problem seem worse because people > can't commit fixes to the tree. While 4.9 is delayed (due to the PAE > instability which never should have been allowed), the ports tree should > be unlocked. The fixes are simple. Make them and move on. I couldn't agree more :-) There should be no reason not to commit fixes to unbreak a port. 5.2-RELEASE has to happen relatively soon also. -- Dan Eischen