From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 29 10:55:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF7F37B401 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id NAA21275; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:54:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:54:55 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Dan Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modifying FILE to add lock In-Reply-To: <20001129104740.L8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alfred Perlstein 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. This would only be in -current (where the library versions have already been bumped) and for our new libpthread. > While you're at it adding one to DIR structs would be very helpful > for fixing our threadsafeness with DIR handles. Thanks! I missed that one. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message