From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 05:21:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1A316A4CE; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 05:21:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C833543D54; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 05:21:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.0.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i585NvTj001259; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:23:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <40C54CC4.8090602@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:21:08 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Marcus Clarke References: <1086671609.18374.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <1086671609.18374.18.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Sean McNeil Subject: Re: weak implementation of threads has problems - kse fix attached X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:21:42 -0000 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? > > Joe > If you're going to change default behaviour like this then you need to do it before 5.3 and live with the change for the entire life of 5.x. I oppose changing it in 4.x. Scott