Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)

From: Daniel Eischen <>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Loren James Rittle wrote:

> > I'm all for removing it, but our FSF GCC maintainer thought
> > it better to make it a NOOP.  We're just going by his advice.
> I agreed that making -pthread == NOOP was probably better than the
> ~Sept 5 -CURRENT system compiler however that was not my full advice.
> In my view (and thus my advice), it is the stated collective opinion
> of the FSF gcc development team that -pthread should exist for all gcc
> ports which support POSIX threads.  This is true even if not well
> documented.  It would be best if adding the switch actually implied
> everything to support threads.
> If adding the -pthread switch is a NOOP to gcc but users could later
> add (e.g.): (or one of the newer choices) and not
> break anything, then I think that would be fully acceptable and meet
> the specification of the switch.  This would be very cool in that you
> could test/run against multiple thread libraries without a re-link.

Yes, and I agree.  If someone were to tell me how to implement
that, I would do it.  If it is just a matter of adding some missing
pthread interfaces as stubs to libc, then it is pretty simple.

> If adding the -pthread switch is a NOOP to gcc but users must also add
> -lc_r (or one of the newer choices) for correct operation, then I
> think making it a NOOP is a bad idea and I attempted to state so.

Well, if they don't use or whatever and
try to run the application, it isn't going to work very well
using pthread stubs.

Dan Eischen
Received on Tue Sep 23 2003 - 07:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:23 UTC