From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 14 06:00:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EA39B16A4CE; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8F26443D1F; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:00:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i2EE0lW7023872;
	Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:00:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:00:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040314090324.GA23093@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403140847010.19558-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:00:49 -0000

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 12:53:55AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > > Can you think of a better way?
> > 
> > I think it was I that got rid of the macros for getc() et al.
> > I did it when libc_r was divorced from libc, and the macro
> > _THREAD_SAFE was no longer necessary.
> > 
> > Solaris uses _REENTRANT to toggle between macros and functions.
> > For the macro versions, it accesses the FILE directly instead
> > of making a function call.
> > 
> > I think the _unlocked versions of the functions are there for
> > a reason.  If an application isn't going to be threaded, then
> > it can always use the unlocked versions...
> 
> Perhaps they could in theory, but in practice, single threaded applications
> don't use the _unlocked functions. They haven't needed to, since most
> serious operating systems except FreeBSD 5 provide getc() and putc() macros.

Yes, like I said at least Solaris uses macros but that forces
threaded applications to use -D_REENTRANT.

If the only thing you are exporting is __isthreaded, then I'll
table my slight dislike of this change.  But we reserve the right
to change __isthreaded.

-- 
Dan Eischen