From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 13 16:23:19 2004 Return-Path: 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 1E0B216A4CE; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0170D43D2D; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:23:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@evilpete.dyndns.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2402A925; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:23:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5FAE259; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:23:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2E0MiIN001840; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:22:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2E0MhaK001839; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:22:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter) From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:22:43 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200403131622.43705.peter@wemm.org> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:23:19 -0000 On Saturday 13 March 2004 07:05 am, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. I thought that was the kind of thing that _REENTRANT or _THREAD_SAFE are usually for? (*shudder*) -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5