Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:45:28 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/devel/icu: PTHREAD_LIBS clean Message-ID: <44irgyjlyf.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <200611290957.26508@aldan> (Mikhail Teterin's message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:25 -0500") References: <20061127222709.aa35ab22.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200611271114.42304@aldan> <20061129230636.aef46d92.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200611290957.26508@aldan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> writes: > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 09:06, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > =3D > but library may also be not using threads _at all_. -lm, for exampl= e, is=20 > =3D > happily used by many threaded programs without itself being thread-= aware. > =3D=20 > =3D =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I understand your ideal, think so too. =A0How= ever, in fact, it is > =3D =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0unrealistic environment:-(. > > Norikatsu, this is not some unreachable ideal (libm is not). If no applic= ation=20 > is calling into a library from multiple threads in parallel, that library= =20 > need not be thread-aware. In that case, it doesn't even need to be thread-safe. libm is supposed to be thread-safe, but has no need to be thread-aware. ICU is different in that not only can it be called from multiple threads, but those threads can (in theory -- as far as I know, you're right that nobody uses this capability right now) be interacting. =20 > You are (slightly) pessimizing your installation by building a thread-awa= re=20 > ICU without having a need for it... On the other hand, that could change at any time.=20=20 Think of all the other programmers in the world as independent threads, that could use the API in new ways... ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44irgyjlyf.fsf>