From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep  1 22:12:52 2004
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 A68E716A4CE; Wed,  1 Sep 2004 22:12:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5AE5D43D1D; Wed,  1 Sep 2004 22:12:52 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	i81MCoFG008278;	Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:12:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:12:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Julian Elischer <julian@vicor.com>
In-Reply-To: <4134C51A.8010207@vicor.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0409011810060.28965-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 4-stable termios diff behaviour lc/lc_r
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <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: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:12:52 -0000

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> this should have been sent to -threads..
> --------------------------------------------
>  >Hi list,
>  >>
>  >> I think I've found a possible bug in 4-stable, though I'm not that
>  >> kind of an expert so I'll leave that decision up to you.
>  >>
>  >> Attached is a little test program that opens /dev/cuaa0 and tries to
>  >> read a couple bytes.
>  >>
>  >> When compiled using "gcc vtime.c -o vtime" there's no problem. For
>  >> example, when you run vtime without anything attached to cuaa0,
>  >> it'll wait about 2 seconds and timeout, since VMIN=0 and VTIME=20.
>  >>
>  >> When compiled using "gcc -pthread vtime.c -o vtime" however, the
>  >> read function returns immediately, which as far as I can understand,
>  >> is not what it's supposed to do.
>  >>
>  >> Does anyone know if this intended or not, or how I can get the right
>  >> behaviour in a threaded program?
>
>
> I've done some more testing. It appears that when linked with lc_r,
> VTIME is completely ignored.

Yes, and it will always be completely ignored.  If you want to
use libc_r on 4.x, you'll have to work around it (use select()
or poll() perhaps).  It is not a problem in 5.x which will be
the next -stable.

-- 
Dan Eischen