From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 5 17:31:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC8416A4BF for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C3143FCB for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:31:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h860Vdtp012458; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:31:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: John Birrell In-Reply-To: <20030906002836.GB25237@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Loren James Rittle cc: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Removing -pthread from gcc X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:31:48 -0000 On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, John Birrell wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:18:08PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > If you link an application, then it will. But if you are linking > > a library (OpenGL, libgthread, etc), I don't think you will get > > the error. > > Why do you need an error when you build the library? Presumably ports > people actually run the libraries that they build with an application > to test them. If the thread functions don't resolve, you'll get a > runtime error stating which library contained an unresolved reference. > I think these things have a way of working themselves out without having > to be too clever. 8-) Yes, it's just easier if the port to which the library belongs breaks, not the port to which the application belongs. Also, some ports build with both -pthread and -lc_r, so NOOPing -pthread wouldn't break those ports. But that's probably another issue altogether :( -- Dan Eischen