Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:55:32 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio _flock_stub.c local.h Message-ID: <20040309035532.GA88825@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20040309143223.Q234@freebsd3.cimlogic.com.au> References: <200403090245.i292j0a6035728@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040309032248.GA88649@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040309143223.Q234@freebsd3.cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:32:23PM +1100, John Birrell wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:22:48PM +1100, Tim Robbins wrote: > > Is this a useful behaviour to support? ORIENT needs to be kept as > > simple as possible since it is invoked for every single stdio call. > > The extra conditional may make a difference for getc() and putc() > > in the single-threaded case. > > If you were concerned about performance "for every single stdio call", > the locking calls would never have been allowed into libc in the > first place. In a single-threaded program they aren't required. My concern here is that we are slowing down critical paths for the sake of broken applications that grope around inside FILEs. Why do we need to support this? Which applications require it, and why? Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040309035532.GA88825>