From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jan 24 00:54:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA16008
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from siesta.cs.wustl.edu (nw1@siesta.cs.wustl.edu [128.252.165.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA16003
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by siesta.cs.wustl.edu (SMI-8.6/ECL-J1.00)
	id CAA26225; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:54:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199701240854.CAA26225@siesta.cs.wustl.edu>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
From: Nanbor Wang <nw1@cs.wustl.edu>
Subject: pthread problem in 2.2-BETA
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:54:07 -0600
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Greetings,

Recently, I am working on porting ACE into FreeBSD.  While playing
with the pthread functions, there seems to be a problem in function
"pthread_getspecific."  In its man page, the function's prototype is

     void *
     pthread_getspecific(pthread_key_t key)

However, in <pthread.h>, it is defined as,

     int   pthread_getspecific __P((pthread_key_t, void **));

Seems to me that the one in the definition is correct (conforms with
POSIX.)  Unfortunately, after checking the source, in libc_r, it is
written as defined in the <pthread.h>.  

Has anyone addressed this already?  I realized that the pthread we
currently have doesn't conform with the latest POSIX standard.  It
doesn't seem difficult to correct this "specific" problem.  Any idea?

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
     Nanbor Wang <nw1@cs.wustl.edu>   http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~nw1/  
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_