This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Can we assume __thread support?
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:26:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: Can we assume __thread support?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <561FB294 dot 1010602 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOq9-oN_gdWReP6ZgCfLpj_SPzdOB7OqfGhJzdX2ryCBGw at mail dot gmail dot com> <561FBD81 dot 7060903 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1510151532410 dot 32402 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20151015162302 dot GR4446 at vapier dot lan>
On 10/15/2015 06:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2015 15:40, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> As a general principle, what do people think of removing such configure
>> tests that exist only to produce errors, if we expect that versions
>> lacking support would also fail to pass the tests of minimum GCC /
>> binutils versions? There are a *lot* of such configure tests; removing
>> them is only a minor cleanup (precisely because they don't condition
>> anything beyond an error), but I think such tests are generally pointless.
>> (Cases where current tools might plausibly fail such a test should be kept
>> - that's for exceptional cases such as the test for a compiler defaulting
>> to -march=i386, where we're testing for a bad configuration rather than a
>> bad version.)
>
> punt them
Agreed.
Florian