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

From: Daniel Eischen <>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, John Baldwin wrote:

> 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.

Where were you a few days ago!

Dan Eischen
Received on Wed Sep 24 2003 - 06:11:46 UTC

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