This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: TR library extensions


Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

...
If they are interchangeable then that is a guarantee not made by
us, but by your system. Full stop.  That is not FUD.  That is a fact
you can verify.

No, but suggesting that using something perfectly safe and in wide use might actually lead to bugs is, especially in the absence of reliable documentation on the subject and even more so when coming from a maintainer of the project.


The FUD is *you* making people into believing that we support use a
different thread model than the one use at configuration time.

I made no claims about anything being guaranteed or supported -- I used the two options as an example of a feature that has been known to work. Coming from a user rather than a maintainer of the compiler it can hardly be described as FUD -- it was just an observation.

Incidentally, though, this patch and thread seem to suggest that the
goal at one point was to provide support for both options with the
same compiler: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1997-09/msg01087.html

If the patch was accepted and is still in gcc today it would be
a service to gcc users if this functionality were documented.
Doing so would answer a lot of people's questions. See for
example

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-07n/msg00467.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2000-06/msg00113.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00470.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-03/msg00589.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2002-07/msg00249.html

Martin



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]