[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f8b9719-cef1-bef4-80b8-ca9dfb0fc6fb@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:23:08 -0500
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com,
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: John Scott <jscott@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: Missing _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_CFLAGS and Missing
_CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_LDFLAGS
On 3/8/22 11:32, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Agreed, there is no reason not to add them.
With libpthread merged into libc (as you noted) this is simpler too.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
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.
