Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:15:44 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mono's XSP crashes on browser connection Message-ID: <20050303151544.GA2518@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <42272009.507@freebsd.org> References: <1109551418.782.30.camel@compass.straycat.dhs.org> <1109742079.777.15.camel@compass.straycat.dhs.org> <422649AF.5090606@freebsd.org> <1109833505.777.80.camel@compass.straycat.dhs.org> <4226B9DC.7040405@freebsd.org> <1109835366.777.95.camel@compass.straycat.dhs.org> <42272009.507@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 10:32:41PM +0800, David Xu wrote: > whether _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED is defined or not in > source code, but he failed to respect this macro at many places, so the > macro is rather bogus. Side note: Keep in mind, that according to the POSIX/Single Unix Specification standards, if a _POSIX_* macro is defined, but is -1, that means that the feature is unsupported. ( See: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/unistd.h.html ). We define a lot of POSIX macros like this in <unistd.h>. The convention on Linux's glibc is to only define a _POSIX macro if the feature is supported. Consequently, a lot of software written on Linux which assumes this convention will break on FreeBSD. The Linux glibc convention is IMHO more intuitive, but FreeBSD is more "standards" conformant. So the Mono code is not entirely doing the right thing with respect to checking _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED....but you mention that the Mono code isn't even consistent in checking this macro. Bleh. :) -- Craig Rodrigues rodrigc@crodrigues.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050303151544.GA2518>