From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 13 07:05:16 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 375D616A4CE; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9FB8C43D1D; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:05:15 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i2DF5EW7006945;
	Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:05:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040313112719.GA18628@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:05:16 -0000

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:

> The patch below re-adds macro versions of getc(), getchar(), putc(),
> putchar(), feof(), ferror(), fileno() and clearerr(), using the value of
> __isthreaded to decide between the fast inline single-threaded code and
> the more general function equivalent (as suggested by Alfred). Is this
> approach safe?

I don't really like this.  It exposes __isthreaded and others
that are implementation.

-- 
Dan Eischen