Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:23:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: weak implementation of threads has problems - kse fix attached Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406080122560.27228-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <1086671609.18374.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ trimmed to threads@ ] On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 00:32, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote: > > > > > > > > Up front, I'd like to make a few apologies: > > > > > > 1) I am sorry for the length of this email. > > > 2) Although some very valid opinions have been expressed, I respectfully > > > have to disagree. This email will hopefully strengthen my position. > > > > Please stop spamming multiple lists. > > > > No, I don't want to litter all our thread libraries with strong references. > > As I've said before, build your shared libraries correctly so they don't > > bring in the threads library. > > In order to do this, I'm a strong proponent of making -pthread the > default PTHREAD_LIBS from 4.X and 5.X. This will do the right thing in > all cases, and reduces diffs among branches. What is keeping this from > happening from a threading standpoint? Nothing from what I can see. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10406080122560.27228-100000>