Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:05:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: weak implementation of threads has problems - kse fix attached Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406080104460.19288-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406080122560.27228-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > [ 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. Can you explain to me in words of 1 sylable why libpthread should not have strong symbols? I haven't been following this argument.. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0406080104460.19288-100000>