From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 13 21:53:57 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 3487616A4CE; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:53:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C452F43D1D; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:53:56 -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 i2E5rtW7001969;
	Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:53:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:53:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040314010805.GA21447@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403140042001.29402-100000@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 05:53:57 -0000

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:05:14AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > > The patch below re-adds macro versions of getc(), getchar(), putc(),
> > > putchar(), feof(), ferror(), fileno() and clearerr(), using the value of
> > > __isthreaded to decide between the fast inline single-threaded code and
> > > the more general function equivalent (as suggested by Alfred). Is this
> > > approach safe?
> > 
> > I don't really like this.  It exposes __isthreaded and others
> > that are implementation.
> 
> 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...

-- 
Dan Eischen