Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:57:08 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> To: Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r189828 - in head: include sys/sys Message-ID: <49C3BCD4.4030605@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20090320153405.GA62675@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <200903142010.n2EKAESF006945@svn.freebsd.org> <20090320140015.GA17645@hub.freebsd.org> <20090320153405.GA62675@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schultz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009, Vasil Dimov wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 08:10:14PM +0000, David Schultz wrote: >> >>> Author: das >>> Date: Sat Mar 14 20:10:14 2009 >>> New Revision: 189828 >>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/189828 >>> >>> Log: >>> Fix the visibility of several prototypes. Also move pthread_kill() and >>> pthread_sigmask() to signal.h. In principle, this shouldn't break anything, >>> >> [...] >> >> But it did break, see http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=132828 >> >> I think one's namespace shouldn't be polluted with the prototype of >> pthread_kill() if he has not included pthread.h. >> > > The pthreads API has always defined pthread_kill() to be in > signal.h, not pthread.h. This is what is done in glibc and > elsewhere. > > GNU Pth has some bogus and extremely unportable hacks to ``trick'' > system headers into not declaring symbols: > > /* > * Prevent system includes from implicitly including > * possibly existing vendor Pthread headers > */ > #define PTHREAD > #define PTHREAD_H > #define _PTHREAD_T > #define _PTHREAD_H > #define _PTHREAD_H_ > #define PTHREAD_INCLUDED > #define _PTHREAD_INCLUDED > #define SYS_PTHREAD_H > #define _SYS_PTHREAD_H > #define _SYS_PTHREAD_H_ > #define SYS_PTHREAD_INCLUDED > #define _SYS_PTHREAD_INCLUDED > #define BITS_PTHREADTYPES_H > #define _BITS_PTHREADTYPES_H > #define _BITS_PTHREADTYPES_H_ > #define _BITS_SIGTHREAD_H > > The one that works for glibc is _BITS_SIGTHREAD_H. I'd rather not > be complicit in these shenanigans, but if we can't easily fix the > problem in Pth, I suppose we can teach signal.h about one of these > bogus macros. What do you think? > > Dumb question, why do we need devel/pth? Isn't the native pthread support sufficient? Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C3BCD4.4030605>