On Fri, 18 May 2012, Joel Sherrill wrote: > 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?
IMHO that would be nice. ISTR there was discussion here a *long* while ago in an attempt to universalize -pthread (*for systems where pthreads are implemented*), that unfortunately died. brgds, H-P
