Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 21:20:33 -0600 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: thread safety Message-ID: <20030209212033.A23910@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7C2EF94D-3C9F-11D7-8E7D-0003937E39E0@mac.com>; from leimy2k@mac.com on Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:29:31PM -0600 References: <7C2EF94D-3C9F-11D7-8E7D-0003937E39E0@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: David Leimbach <leimy2k@mac.com> [ Data: 2003-02-09 ] [ Subjecte: thread safety ] > This function has a time_t value which is static. I don't think this > function, the > way it appears to be designed, can easily be made thread safe as a > result. Passing in pointers to storage that used to be static (and then making the original a wrapper that passes in the static storage) is OK? -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030209212033.A23910>