weak implementation of threads has problems - kse fix attached

[Julian Elischer]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote:

> [ trimmed to threads@ ]
> 
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 00:32, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Up front, I'd like to make a few apologies:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) I am sorry for the length of this email.
> > > > 2) Although some very valid opinions have been expressed, I respectfully
> > > > have to disagree.  This email will hopefully strengthen my position.
> > > 
> > > Please stop spamming multiple lists.
> > > 
> > > No, I don't want to litter all our thread libraries with strong references.
> > > As I've said before, build your shared libraries correctly so they don't
> > > bring in the threads library.

Can you explain to me in words of 1 sylable why libpthread should not
have strong symbols? I haven't been following this argument..

> > 
> > In order to do this, I'm a strong proponent of making -pthread the
> > default PTHREAD_LIBS from 4.X and 5.X.  This will do the right thing in
> > all cases, and reduces diffs among branches.  What is keeping this from
> > happening from a threading standpoint?
> 
> Nothing from what I can see.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Eischen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>