From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 12 12:22:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2774B37B400; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4CC43E3B; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B81B2A7D6; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:22:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, audit@FreeBSD.ORG, Alexander Litvin , Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: Thread-safe resolver [patches for review] In-Reply-To: <3D57A9D4.DAA043EF@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:22:50 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020812192250.4B81B2A7D6@canning.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Maxim Sobolev wrote: > I also would like to hear from you whether or not you think that we > need all those gethostbyXXX_r(3) functions. Yes. Because autoconf looks for them and will assume non-reentrancy if they are not present. Also, for source compatability with linux and solaris and just about everything else that implements this stuff. The expectation is that gethostbyXXX is non-safe and that gethostbyXXX_r is safe. If you can make the non_r versions safe then that is a bonus I guess. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message