This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Option -pthread in test suite with cross compilers
Joel Sherrill <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 05/18/2012 09:05 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Joel Sherrill<email@example.com> writes:
>>> On 05/18/2012 08:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>> Ralf Corsepius<firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>> I am not sure, but AFAICT, -pthread is Linux-specific.
>>>> It's not properly documented, but -pthread works on a number of hosts,
>>>> including Solaris, Darwin, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX.
>>> Ian.. Is it better to make it a noop for RTEMS or fix the test
>>> infrastructure that is turning it on where it doesn't exist?
>> Sorry to be vague, but I think it depends on whether the tests are
>> meaningful on RTEMS. If dg-require-effective-target pthread_h lets a
>> test run, then I suppose I think the -pthread option ought to work.
> Ok to be vague. :)
> Is there an implicit assumption that having pthread.h
> means a target has libpthread.a and support for the
> -pthread option?
> That's a bit of a reach. We have good pthread.h support
> but include that in librtemscpu.a which is implicitly linked
> against all the time. And obviously no -pthread option.
> if the tests are checking some pthread capability, then
> we should be running them.
> I don't mind having -pthread be a noop but the leap
> from a having a header file to having a specific gcc
> option is a stretch IMO. Unless EVERY gcc target with
> pthread support is required by gcc to have that option.
> Is that the undocumented(?) intent?
Some systems require the -pthread option to get fully correct behaviour
for threaded programs (the -pthread option implies -lpthread,
incidentally). I think it would be reasonable for RTEMS to accept the
-pthread option. I also think it would be reasonable to fix the
testsuite to only use -pthread on systems that require it.