From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Sep 22 18:05:52 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA19035
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA18996
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.6/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id BAA11391; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 01:05:31 GMT
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:05:31 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freefall.freebsd.org>
cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: libc_r bug
In-Reply-To: <199609220613.XAA28775@freefall.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960923100330.11191C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:

>   > _thread_fd_table_init() just sets up
>   > the table for a fd. fds 0, 1 and 2 don't have to be valid.
> 
> Since we can't tell whether a given fd might need a call to
> _thread_fd_table_init() or not, the correctness before all else
> principle would argue for either pre-allocating all the fd entries
> or doing it on demand by placing a call to _thread_fd_table_init()
> in write() and all the other places where it might be needed.  Of
> these two, I prefer the second.  What about you?
> 

I prefer on demand too.

Regards,


Mike Hancock