Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:06:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: archie@whistle.com, eischen@vigrid.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, lists@tar.com Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <199810220106.VAA07017@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next 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... Well, that's what the POSIX spec says. If you are going to detect the condition, then you must return EINVAL. If you are not going to detect the condition, then "undefined behavior" occurs. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.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?199810220106.VAA07017>