Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:39:49 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/gcc/config freebsd-spec.h Message-ID: <1062387589.42216.26.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <3F52BE08.9010408@freebsd.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308312240001.15178-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <3F52B5CE.8040905@freebsd.org> <1062386257.42216.21.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <3F52BE08.9010408@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 23:33, Scott Long wrote:
> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 22:58, Scott Long wrote:
> >>
> >>This opens up very important questions. How do we smoothly make
> >>the transition?
> >
> >
> > What GNOME ports are doing is replacing -lpthread with ${PTHREAD_LIBS}
> > wherever we see it. This is done via the gnomehack meta-component.
> > There is also a proposal to make a general pthread hack in ports/55683.
> >
> >
> >> What is the appropriate threading library for each
> >>platform?
> >
> >
> > Once we decide on this, it should be easy to adjust bsd.port.mk to set
> > PTHREAD_LIBS accordingly for each platform.
> >
> >
> >> Should 'libpthread' be a symlink, or should a library be
> >>renamed?
> >
> >
> > I don't think you have to do either. It should be easy enough to have
> > ${PTHREAD_LIBS} be set to a reasonable value on each platform, plus have
> > users override that if they desire.
> >
>
> I've heard rumors of some ports that abuse autoconf to check for not
> only pthread.h, but also libpthread.so.
Perhaps. The standard GNU template these days is solved with the
aforementioned pthread hack.
> Is this a concern? What about
> packages that one might compile directly (not through the ports tree)?
This is a concern, and I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps
we will need to feed patches back to GNU when we decide what platforms
will use what threading implementations.
> While this question is probably not politically correct, it is one that
> should be addressed. Compiling outside of the ports tree is a common
> occurence and we should probably remove as many landmines from it as
> possible.
>
> >
> >> How do we answer these last two questions in a consistent
> >>fashion?
> >
> >
> > I think the main platform developers need to answer the preferred thread
> > implementation question, then it needs to be done in bsd.port.mk.
>
> I assume that bsd.port.mk settings can be made on a per-arch basis?
Yes.
Joe
>
> Scott
>
--
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQA/Ur+Fb2iPiv4Uz4cRAl45AKCMNhHtkWDhCqtX8qmdtgrRfTEIOgCZAXmq
OB3eCaRtyhZmi4/VWpYEcIQ=
=CH99
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1062387589.42216.26.camel>