--On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:19:57 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, August 04, 2003 13:11:45 -0400 Bruce Momjian
>> <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> >> >> > We decided to make separate thread/nonthread libraries if the
>> >> >> > threading requires any special flags --- we haven't done that
>> >> >> > yet, and only configure controls it.
>> >> >> That will be a POLA (principle of least astonishment) violation on
>> >> >> UnixWare.
>> >> >
>> >> > When we have the capability to do dual library builds, we might
>> >> > have a way to specify a threading flag that will apply to the main
>> >> > libpq and not create a libpq_r. If it is a good flag, can we use
>> >> > it in the template file for all compiling?
>> >> I **THINK** so. What I'm thinking of is -D_REENTRANT for UnixWare
>> >> especially for libpq.
>> >>
>> >> the --with-threads would cause ecpg to be compiled/linked as -lpthread
>> >> in addition to
>> >> -D_REENTRANT
>> >
>> > Nope, we are not going to link with -lpthread unless it is enabled in
>> > configure.
>> Right. but libpq should be built with -D_REENTRANT on UnixWare
>> regardless of the
>> --with-threads.
>
> Well, let's see what additional functionality we need. I am not
> feeling too friendly on SCO/Unixware right now to jump through hoops.
Let's not go there. I'm not involved in the IP fight, but I am a USER on
that
platform, and SCO is thinking ****SERIOUSLY**** about shipping PG on the
Platform
as part of their extensions offering.
What the fr*** harm is it in passing -D_REENTRANT into the libpq build on
UnixWare
irregardless of the --with-threads* flag?
Same argument for allowing the PORT to determine whether to allow/permit
the full
pathname in for DT_SONAME.
Let's not run people off because of what the damn lawyers are doing.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749