Can we assume __thread support?

[Florian Weimer]

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