Re: [musl] Missing _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_CFLAGS and Missing _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_LDFLAGS

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 03:23:08PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On 3/8/22 11:32, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 08/03/2022 11:01, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:52:48AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 08/03/2022 10:02, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 06:50:51AM +0000, John Scott wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please CC me on replies.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It seems like musl is missing these confstr parameters which are
> > >>>>> necessary to portably get the build flags for building multithreaded
> > >>>>> programs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes, we were waiting to add them to pick common numbers that glibc
> > >>>> would also use. Any idea if they've done that yet? If not I'll ping
> > >>>> them again, and if they still don't respond I guess we just pick our
> > >>>> own and let them potentially diverge...
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you have the initial thread on libc-alpha in hand? I think I missed it.
> > >>> In any case I would like to not diverge.
> > >>
> > >> From 2020:
> > >>
> > >> Subject: [RFC][PATCH] * bits/confname.h: Define _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_CFLAGS, _CS_POSIX_V7_THREADS_LDFLAGS
> > >> Message-Id: <20201026233303.16034-1-ericonr@disroot.org>
> > > 
> > > Thanks, the patch missed some bits but I think the rationale is ok to
> > > include.  If Érico can update the patch I will apply it.
> > 
> > Agreed, there is no reason not to add them.
> > 
> > With libpthread merged into libc (as you noted) this is simpler too.
> 
> OK. As long as glibc is on board with adding these now, can someone
> confirm what the numbers will be so I can go ahead and add them on the
> musl side?

Ok, to answer myself, it looks like they would be 1150 and 1151.

Rich