Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:59:25 +1100 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros Message-ID: <20040314005925.GA21214@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <200403131622.43705.peter@wemm.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <200403131622.43705.peter@wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 04:22:43PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Saturday 13 March 2004 07:05 am, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote: > > > The patch below re-adds macro versions of getc(), getchar(), > > > putc(), putchar(), feof(), ferror(), fileno() and clearerr(), using > > > the value of __isthreaded to decide between the fast inline > > > single-threaded code and the more general function equivalent (as > > > suggested by Alfred). Is this approach safe? > > > > I don't really like this. It exposes __isthreaded and others > > that are implementation. > > I thought that was the kind of thing that _REENTRANT or _THREAD_SAFE > are usually for? (*shudder*) Not anymore - we have to check at runtime. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040314005925.GA21214>