Re: ports and -current

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <20030921021940.GB28195_at_freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
>             John Birrell <jb_at_cimlogic.com.au> writes:
> : On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > But it was completely removed.  That sounds like the consensus wasn't
> : > followed.  Why was it then removed?
> : 
> : It got discussed a bit more after the removal. That was the time when the
> : GCC people got involved. The discussions where on FreeBSD public lists.
> 
> Yes.  However, it is clear that the pain level wasn't adequately
> disclosed at the time of the removal.
> 
> : > So we change -pthread to mean "link in the default threading package,
> : > with whatever magic is necessary for that package" rather than "link
> : > in libc_r instead of libc".
> : 
> : A better way is to just link to the thread package you want. Keep knowledge
> : of thread libraries outside GCC. There really is nothing simpler that
> : adding -lc_r or -lpthread or -lmyownthreadlib. No magic required.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> : > Then why was it completely removed?
> : 
> : Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise.
> 
> Time has proven the "not needed" part was premature.
> 
> : > At the very least, we should put it back as a noop.  The timing on
> : > this really sucks because it breaks the ports tree for an extended
> : > period of time.  While the fixes are simple, they haven't been made
> : > yet.  The fact that the tree is frozen makes it seem like a really bad
> : > time to make the change.
> : 
> : Yes, I think it should go back as a noop (mostly to satisfy the GCC
> : people though).
> 
> Sounds like we're in violent agreement.

But you seem to thing -pthread == NOOP unbreaks ports ;-)

-- 
Dan Eischen