Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:33:43 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Initial list of ports that fail due to -pthread Message-ID: <20030924023343.GA55583@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20030924023205.GK34649@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <20030924021820.GA55388@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030924023205.GK34649@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:32:05PM +1000, John Birrell wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:18:21PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Here is a partial list of the ports that need to be taught to respect
> > PTHREAD_LIBS and PTHREAD_CFLAGS, from the latest 5.x package build (I
> > just grepped for the "-pthread is deprecated" error message). None of
> > these were fixed by ports/57047. It is likely that there are many
> > more that also need to be fixed - either they fail in other ways, or
> > are hidden by depending on another port that currently fails.
>
> I had a go at fixing some of the ones listed on your status page. I started
> with the ones that had the greatest number of dependencies.
>
> The thing I'm not sure about is whether there is consensus that the
> -pthread argument should be removed from GCC. I've supported Dan's
> approach because I understand the background. I think there have been a
> few too many "don't do that" emails.
Won't these ports still need to be fixed to look at
PTHREAD_{LIBS,CFLAGS} though, since the correct values for 4.x and 5.x
will still be different?
Kris
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD4DBQE/cQKHWry0BWjoQKURAsZeAJd/PEc3JwJqGmPtkwBfAmu6933RAKCgIN7E
E/9b7aP34yTP4TNigwvrew==
=vvRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030924023343.GA55583>