From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 18 19:18:13 2003
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 19CA837B401
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F6743F93
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h5J2IAXh005341;
	Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <001e01c335e6$1ccca630$0701a8c0@tiger>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306182213220.3647-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: Removal of bogus gethostbyaddr_r()
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org
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: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 02:18:13 -0000

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, David Xu wrote:
> From: "Daniel Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>
> > If that's true, then it's a bug and eventually should
> > be fixed.  Additionally, you can't go around removing
> > public interfaces without bumping library versions
> > (unless said interface hasn't seen a release yet).
> > 
> 
> I think those *_r interfaces are not very useful except
> bloating library. why do not improve non _r version to use
> thread local instead to make them reentrant between threads ?

The _r versions are expected and part of POSIX (in general,
I'll haven't checked to see if gethostbyaddr_r is part of
POSIX, but it does exist in Solaris).  So it's necessary
to have the _r versions, at least those specified by the
POSIX spec.  We just need to make sure we provide the correct
prototypes for them and ensure they are indeed thread-safe.

-- 
Dan Eischen