[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multithread CPPFLAGS
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: multithread CPPFLAGS |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:15:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello,
* Matthew Woehlke wrote on Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:40:07PM CEST:
> Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>>>> - it does not need to see a thread-aware errno,
>>>> hence it does not need to compile with THREADCPPFLAGS.
>>> Not using a thread-aware errno from an application that indirectly use
>>> thread through a library (which use thread-aware errno). Are you
>>> completely sure this is safe?
>>
>> Instead of discussing whether I'm "completely sure" and what we can "assume",
>> can you show a test program that decides the question without any doubt?
>
> No, because such a test program would have to be run on all supported
> porting targets to confirm that there is no problem
The logic is wrong here: All that is desired is a confirmation that there
exists *one* target where there is a problem. Then it is clear that the
problem needs to be addressed.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: Lock module improvement, (continued)
- Re: Lock module improvement, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/18
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/20
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/21
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/21
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/21
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Matthew Woehlke, 2008/08/21
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/25
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/25
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/25
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Matthew Woehlke, 2008/08/25
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS,
Ralf Wildenhues <=