Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:28:42 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Gordon <arg@arg1.demon.co.uk> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: utmp/wtmp interface Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970722172644.2234A-100000@server.arg.sj.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199707220357.NAA26773@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > David Nugent stands accused of saying: > > > Absolutely it is, and the penalty is paid by the non-threaded > > version, and it makes the code more complex then it need be in > > any case. The point is whether there is any benefit in making it > > thread-safe. :-) > > Good question. Maybe save worrying about that until it needs to be? But isn't the time of definition of the API the only chance to do it cheaply (ie. by having the caller pass in all required buffers, avoiding the need for static buffers in the library)? Qpologies if I've missed the point here.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970722172644.2234A-100000>