Re: enable-thread-safety defaults?

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> 2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> On fre, 2009-11-20 at 08:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> 2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>>> > On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> >> Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
>>> >> by default on most platforms?
>>> >
>>> > Consistent defaults on all platforms?
>>>
>>> So why do we have largefile enabled by default? And zlib? And readline?
>>
>> Let me be more verbose:  I would assume that we want the configure
>> defaults to be the same on all platforms.  We fail by default, for
>> example, if zlib and readline are not there, but you can turn them off
>> explicitly.  If we turn thread-safety on by default, we will/should fail
>> if thread-safety is not supported, requiring the user to turn it off
>> explicitly.
>
> Yes, of course. Silently turning it off would be a really really bad idea.
>
>> If enough platforms don't support thread-safety, this could
>> become annoying.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> I don't have a good overview over how many platforms would be affected,
>> and I could in general support changing the default, but I'm just laying
>> down one possible constraint.
>
> Well, the buildfarm would tell us that, no? :)

ISTM that it should be as simple as the attached patch. Seems to work
for me :-) But I'm no autoconf guru, so maybe I missed something?
Comments? If not, how about we put this on HEAD and let the buildfarm
tell us how bad an idea it was?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/