Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:38:13 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Testers wanted: reentrant resolver Message-ID: <200402220038.i1M0cEoF058982@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402211822020.7870-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > > > > > > Could you take a look at my test program (that I put in src/tools/) to see > > > > if I made any pthreading errors? > > > > > > Where in src/tools? > > > > It's in src/tools/regression/gaithrstress. > > Yes, it looks fine to me. > > One other thing about your patch, probably minor. Since h_error > is only used for the main thread now, multithreaded applications > that haven't been recompiled will still be referencing it > instead of the new function. This would seem to break the ABI, > right? These older applications will pick up the wrong h_error. That's right; applications that use the mostly-deprecated h_errno API will have to be recompiled if they want to get the right error codes. I don't see a way around that, so I'm not worried about it -- and I don't think any application that doesn't do its own big giant lock around all gethostbyname() calls should be using h_errno; if it's using getaddrinfo(), the correct API for accessing errors is there. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402220038.i1M0cEoF058982>