On 23-Sep-2003 Dan Naumov wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:25, Dan Naumov wrote: >> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:13, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> > I understand that folks want to wave their hands and say "just make >> > -pthread work and do whatever it needs to". >> >> I am one of those folks as well. As an end-user, I am not interested in >> hacking around the source of 3rd-party applications that use -pthread >> when compiling them from source myself. Not in the slightest. This is >> BAD BAD BAD for usability. >> >> Sincerely, >> Dan Naumov > > I also believe that a question has to be asked, what do the -core and > -arch people think of all this ? I think that they should have the final > say in the matter. I think having a magic option to gcc that translates to 'link with the foo library' is rediculous. What's next, a gcc -math to get the math functions in libm? The fact that functions live in libraries and that to get access to said functions you link with said libraries has been the practice on Un*x for longer than I've been alive. Please, people, let the -pthread hack die and just use -l<mumble thread library>. I think any FreeBSD-specific -pthread bits should just be removed and have the compiler complain about a bogus option. If gcc chooses to have a machine independent -pthread (or -thread) to turn on TLS or some such, that's great and all, but that would be gcc code, not FreeBSD-specific code. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/Received on Wed Sep 24 2003 - 04:13:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:23 UTC