From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 13 21:31: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E3037B401; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6060D43EAC; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.3/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g9E4UvsI015443; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:30:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: Tim Robbins Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Macros in In-Reply-To: <20021014094459.A25812@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Tim Robbins wrote: > Since revision 1.25 of src/include/stdio.h removed the macro versions of > putc() and getc(), is there any reason why we shouldn't go the whole way > and remove the rest of the macros (*_unlocked()) ? These functions are defined by POSIX as thread-safe functions. The are allowed to be implemented as macros, but not required to be. You need to add them as functions before you can remove them as macros. I am not sure whether the performance gain warrants keeping them as macros or not. > This would let us make FILE opaque and move the definition of > struct __sFILE into src/lib/libc/stdio/local.h. This would also let us > remove the __sFILEX hack. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message