https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769
--- Comment #19 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net> --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18) > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #17) > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16) > > > As explained above, this is not something that can be fixed in GCC. > > > > I'm wondering why this bug was marked as FIXED, then. This is misleading. > > Providing <threads.h> or not is a compiler decision, not a library decision, > so that's clearly out of scope for GCC. __STDC_NO_THREADS__ is right on the > fence, though. But if nothing was done in GCC to attempt to avoid the issue on its side, FIXED is not the right status. WONTFIX would be more appropriate. Note: The issue is not about whether <threads.h> should be provided or not, but whether it is available, and this can be *detected* by the compiler. If <threads.h> is missing, then the compiler could safely define __STDC_NO_THREADS__.
