John Birrell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: >>At the very least, we should put [-pthread] 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). Perhaps put it back as a noop with a particularly loud warning: "Warning: -pthread does nothing. If this is a port, complain to the maintainer to fix it." TimReceived on Sun Sep 21 2003 - 09:48:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:23 UTC