Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:26:51 +0000 (GMT) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: ianh@saturn-tech.com (Ian Hungerford) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Thread safe libc Message-ID: <199709162326.XAA04662@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970916034757.3623A-100000@hobbes.saturn-tech.com> from Ian Hungerford at "Sep 16, 97 03:55:45 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Hungerford wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > Why don't you simply use libc_r ? That's what it's there for. :) > > I suppose I should have mentioned that I was looking at libc_r - there > are no _THREAD_SAFE tests in the net subdir (none that do anything, > anyway). :) Ian, Your assessment is correct. The net code in libc needs work to add the re-entrant calls which include the extra args to avoid the use of the static variables. And then work is needed to make the traditional functions with the static variables allocate those variables on a per-thread basis so that they behave in the same way they do in a sindle threaded program. > > --- > Ian > Regards, -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org; jb@freebsd.org CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709162326.XAA04662>