Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:19:07 +0200 From: Marcin Dalecki <mdcki@gmx.net> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: Freebsd Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <3F70D4EB.1080604@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231656470.26876-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231656470.26876-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > >>Scott Long wrote: >> >> >>>I'm perfectly happy to support the libkse->libpthread switch, and I'm >>>perfectly happy to support making libpthread be the default threading >>>library. But, I strongly believe that we need to also treat -pthread >>>sanely. >> >>You have to decide what the therading lib should be indeed. >>However recent expirence shows that a 1:n model seems to be the >>one the world over you is gearing around: Linux never did anything else. >>Windows anyway. Solaris switched from n:m to 1:n on the step between >>version 8 and 9.... Having two of them isn't the solution for me as a developer >>since I'm simply not interresed in debugging both cases. > > > This is a reason why -pthread shouldn't imply linking > to any one library. If you only want to deal with > libthr or libthread (KSE in 1:1 mode), then you are > free to choose them and only them. Last time I heard that "this is a link time option". So you are supposed to change the lib under the hood of the applications controll. Making -ptherad empty is silly. If you are going to disable this perfectly sensible compiler switch then BY EVERY MEANS better make it BREAK CYRING ABOUT THIS FACT. But don't just silent it.... >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F70D4EB.1080604>