[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27313c4e-2af4-b882-7f53-0739196d99c1@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 13:32:13 -0300
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, John Scott <jscott@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: Missing _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_CFLAGS and Missing
_CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_LDFLAGS
On 08/03/2022 11:01, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:52:48AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 10:02, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 06:50:51AM +0000, John Scott wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Please CC me on replies.
>>>>
>>>> It seems like musl is missing these confstr parameters which are
>>>> necessary to portably get the build flags for building multithreaded
>>>> programs.
>>>
>>> Yes, we were waiting to add them to pick common numbers that glibc
>>> would also use. Any idea if they've done that yet? If not I'll ping
>>> them again, and if they still don't respond I guess we just pick our
>>> own and let them potentially diverge...
>>
>> Do you have the initial thread on libc-alpha in hand? I think I missed it.
>> In any case I would like to not diverge.
>
> From 2020:
>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH] * bits/confname.h: Define _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_CFLAGS, _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_LDFLAGS
> Message-Id: <20201026233303.16034-1-ericonr@...root.org>
Thanks, the patch missed some bits but I think the rationale is ok to
include. If Érico can update the patch I will apply it.
>
> I thought there was a bugzilla item for it too but I can't find it.
It is BZ#25003 [1].
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25003
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
