On 09.07.2012, at 21:23, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Max Horn <m...@quendi.de> writes:
>>> would it be feasible for the purpose of
>>> the check to tweak the definition of "works" used in the loop so that
>>> it considers the warning as "not working"?
>> That would be possible, and probably a good idea. But it is also
>> completely orthogonal to my patch. Indeed, if done without my
>> patch,...
> No, I was suggesting it as a possible way to make the addition of ""
> order independent (which you said is impossible in your initial
> reply).

This would make things "order independent" for the specific subset of pthread 
implementations git supports right now. But there are systems where e.g. both 
-lpthreads and -lpthread work (link correctly, produce no warnings), but only 
one provides a POSIX compliant pthread implementation. For such systems, order 
will play a role, no matter what. Granted, git does not yet support such 
systems (with regards to pthreads, at least) at all. 

But all in all, I don't understand why this order independence seems to be so 
important? To me it seems merely an illusion anyway, not worth the extra effort.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to