Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:08:05 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros Message-ID: <20040314010805.GA21447@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20040313112719.GA18628@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040314010805.GA21447>