Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:14:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sem_* API Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209161812030.96232-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020917010939.GE86737@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Does it make sense for these to actually be in libc? This is > because they can be used to inter-process syncronization, not > just between threads... that depends on the standard.. is teh posix standard that defines these defining then outside the scope of threads? If so then they should be defined outside of threads. Is there a 'nonblocking' way of using these? because libc_r can not block of course.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0209161812030.96232-100000>