Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:35:28 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP: -pthread is going to break under -current soon
Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010122232727.28215A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010122200425.A63549@shale.csir.co.za>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Jeremy Lea wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:18:17PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > In a couple of days, I'll be committing changes to libc and libc_r
> > to allow them to be linked together via -lc_r.  libc_r will only
> > contain the thread functions and will not contain any libc functions
> > as it does currently.  We currently use -pthread as a non-standard
> > hack to link to libc_r and to prevent linking to libc.  After I
> > commit these changes, using -pthread will not work; it will produce
> > an executable that is only linked to libc_r but which also needs to
> > be linked to libc.  This also means that all (shared) threaded apps
> > will need to be recompiled under -current.
> 
> I would like to object to this change.  Using -pthread to link threaded
> applications has been well advertised as a FreeBSD way of doing things,
> and you are going to break lots of ports, many of which will be non
> trivial to fix to work on both -current and -stable.
> 
> What is wrong with leaving '-pthread' as an alias for '-lc_r'?

-pthread is integrated into the baseline gcc source.  This is
out of my control; obrien owns this.  -pthread needs to go away
at some point, so we'll have to deal with the issue sooner or
later.

> Also, with regards to the naming of the new library.  Even if we get a
> new KSE based thread library, we should only ever have one library to
> which applications should be linked if they want threads.  If they get
> userland or kernel threading, or a combination of the two, is irrelevant
> (or should be from the point of view of third party applications).  I
> would therefore suggest that we move now to using libpthread.

libc_r and libpthread(KSE) may not be compatible with each other.
One will be a many threads to one process, the other many to many
(in effect).  We need to have both in the tree at the same time
for a while.  libpthread isn't going to appear one day and just
work; it'll probably be much like SMPng.

-- 
Dan Eischen



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010122232727.28215A-100000>