From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 29 10:50:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9239B37B400 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eATIocM24437; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:50:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:50:38 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Dan Eischen Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modifying FILE to add lock Message-ID: <20001129105038.M8051@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <3A254710.ED8B2C26@vigrid.com> <20001129104740.L8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001129104740.L8051@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:47:40AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Alfred Perlstein [001129 10:47] wrote: > * Dan Eischen [001129 10:11] wrote: > > Is there any objection to modifying struct __sFILE in stdio.h > > to add a lock. I am think we need to do this for libpthread. > > This should let us eliminate the _THREAD_SAFE macro. > > I have no objection as long as you bump the shared lib version > from -stable. This would be a great time to do it. ...er but only if they aren't already bumped, if libc in 4.x is at 4 and in 5-current is at 5 already then leave the versions alone. > > While you're at it adding one to DIR structs would be very helpful > for fixing our threadsafeness with DIR handles. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message