Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:25:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030921011930.K9576@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210238590.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210238590.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> Well, actually it is directly related. Part of the plan to
> transition to libpthread is making ports PTHREAD_LIBS compliant.
> As stated in that thread, if a libpthread exists on the system,
> autoconf/configure will pick it up and the port will also end up
> using -pthread and/or PTHREAD_LIBS. If PTHREAD_LIBS is set
> to libthr or libc_r (something other than libpthread), then
> the port ends up linking to both libraries. This doesn't work
> but you don't know it until your run the application and very
> weird things happen. Causing a clean breakage is better because
> you know at compile-time that something is wrong. So ports need to
> first be PTHREAD_LIBS compliant before we make the switch. Soon
> after ports are fixed, we can rename it.
Where the ports are concerned, I think this is a reasonable course of
action, and I'd like to thank you for backing out the -pthread change on
HEAD. I am a little confused about one thing though. What is going to
happen to third party apps that use -pthread that aren't compiled
through the ports?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030921011930.K9576>