Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel Eischen) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, lists@tar.com Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <199810212136.OAA28470@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199810212121.RAA16655@pcnet1.pcnet.com> from Daniel Eischen at "Oct 21, 98 05:21:59 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen writes: > > Random interjected comment.. > > > > I would argue that for any case that POSIX says results in "undefined > > behavior", and the pthread code can easily detect this case, FreeBSD > > should immediately abort(3). Threads programmers will thank you > > when their bugs are revealed for them. > > If it's like pthread_mutex_lock(), POSIX will say that pthread_cond_wait > should return EINVAL if it doesn't own the mutex *and* this condition > is detected by the implementation. Much as we'd like to say "Bad > programmer, Bad!" I don't think POSIX will allow us to with anything > other than an EINVAL return value. What you've described looks like *defined* behavior to me... -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810212136.OAA28470>