From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27816 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2012 17:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 27801 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2012 17:57:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:57:07 +0000 From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51906] thread lock test failures on darwin11 under Xcode 4.2 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:57:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906 --- Comment #51 from Iain Sandoe 2012-02-03 17:56:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #49) > (In reply to comment #46) > > (In reply to comment #45) > > > Then I think we have to disable __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT unconditionally > > > on darwin. > > > > I hope not. > > putting -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 - will cause the macro value to be 1060 - so > > defeating it. One would not expect it to run on 10.7. > > So using -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 without also using the 10.6 SDK is pilot > error? if you are relying on system features that are not the same on different versions, then yes. > But if I understand correctly, 10.6 didn't define > PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_INITIALIZER anyway, so using the 10.6 SDK would cause > it to be undefined, so why not just disable __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT > unconditionally? > > The only system that defines it (10.7) can't use it. OK. I'd missed that - in which case no objection to the unconditional disable from me. > > If one puts -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 and sysroots to the 10.6 SDK - *and* > > then transfers the executable to a 10.6 system - then that should work. If > > not, then I agree. > > Presumably it doesn't even need to be transferred to a 10.6 system, using the > 10.6 SDK should mean the headers don't have the static initializer, so the > pthread_mutex_init_function() will always be used to create a recursive mutex, > and Greg says that works on 10.7 Well, in this case you would bypass your test, but use the older header (notwithstanding issues of run-time vs config time) - so, yes, I suppose it would work in principle.