From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 13 17:07:57 2004 Return-Path: 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 4577B16A4CE for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.30.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F9243D1D for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:07:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au) Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (210.50.204.88) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.024) id 402BA92700A07AFD; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:07:55 +1100 Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2CE1B4193; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:08:05 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:08:05 +1100 From: Tim Robbins To: Daniel Eischen Message-ID: <20040314010805.GA21447@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <20040313112719.GA18628@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:07:57 -0000 On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:05:14AM -0500, 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. Can you think of a better way? Tim