Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:46:09 +0930 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu, tlambert@primenet.com Subject: Re: Thread calls Message-ID: <XFMail.980902174609.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199809020824.SAA28063@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02-Sep-98 John Birrell wrote: > > 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. OK, I did not know this. (yeah yeah.. I didn't do any research on it :) It sounds like it has turned into a defacto standard for determining the thread version on the system though :( > Just because you read it in a message on a mailing list doesn't make it > true. Thats true, but my experience with threaded programs is kind of limited, so I am forced to take advice from other people :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- |Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software | |http://www.gsoft.com.au | |The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to| |choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum | --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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?XFMail.980902174609.doconnor>