From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 24 09:52:07 2003 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 49CB716A4B3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5384143FE0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 8417 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2003 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Sep 2003 16:52:04 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8OGq06Y023112; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: deischen@freebsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Dan Naumov Subject: RE: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) 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: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:52:07 -0000 On 24-Sep-2003 Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > >> >> On 23-Sep-2003 Dan Naumov wrote: >> > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:25, Dan Naumov wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:13, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >> > I understand that folks want to wave their hands and say "just make >> >> > -pthread work and do whatever it needs to". >> >> >> >> I am one of those folks as well. As an end-user, I am not interested in >> >> hacking around the source of 3rd-party applications that use -pthread >> >> when compiling them from source myself. Not in the slightest. This is >> >> BAD BAD BAD for usability. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Dan Naumov >> > >> > I also believe that a question has to be asked, what do the -core and >> > -arch people think of all this ? I think that they should have the final >> > say in the matter. >> >> I think having a magic option to gcc that translates to 'link with the >> foo library' is rediculous. What's next, a gcc -math to get the math >> functions in libm? The fact that functions live in libraries and that >> to get access to said functions you link with said libraries has been >> the practice on Un*x for longer than I've been alive. Please, people, >> let the -pthread hack die and just use -l. >> I think any FreeBSD-specific -pthread bits should just be removed >> and have the compiler complain about a bogus option. If gcc chooses >> to have a machine independent -pthread (or -thread) to turn on TLS or >> some such, that's great and all, but that would be gcc code, not >> FreeBSD-specific code. > > Where were you a few days ago! DNS problems == no outbound e-mail. :-P If gcc does want to go with a gcc-mandated -pthread option, then we should follow suit with that (and it seems that gcc might), but I don't think we need a FreeBSD-only flag if gcc doesn't mandate a -pthread option. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/