Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:24:16 +1000 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: doconnor@gsoft.com.au (Daniel O'Connor) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Thread calls Message-ID: <199809020824.SAA28063@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980902163617.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> from Daniel O'Connor at "Sep 2, 98 04:36:17 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 02-Sep-98 Terry Lambert wrote: > > > So, from what I hear, noone is implementing these calls in FreeBSD's > > > libc_r? > > There is an OpenLDAP effort, which will necessitate these calls being > > implemented and/or the PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER going away until FreeBSD > > complies with Draft 10 (Standard) pthreads. > So, why was the PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER thing implemented if it broke the > ability to easily check between standards? ie is there a good reason to not > back that change out until a more comprehensive set of patches comes along? I don't agree with Terry's assessment of Draft 10 vs Draft 4 issues in libc_r. AFAIK, the interfaces there are 1003.1c, and they exercise the POSIX standard clause: "either it shall be implemented like this or not implemented". Too many threaded programs assume that all the optional functions are supposed to be implemented. Just because you read it in a message on a mailing list doesn't make it true. -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 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?199809020824.SAA28063>