From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 27 11:18:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA06269 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:18:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cimlogic.com.au (cimlog.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.51.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06255 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:18:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: (from jb@localhost) by cimlogic.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.7) id GAA17326; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 06:19:45 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jb) From: John Birrell Message-Id: <199802271919.GAA17326@cimlogic.com.au> Subject: Re: _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS and *_r functions In-Reply-To: <34F6EC08.F6@opengroup.org> from "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" at "Feb 27, 98 11:38:32 am" To: k.keithley@opengroup.org (Kaleb S. KEITHLEY) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 06:19:45 +1100 (EST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > That means that if you don't have the Thread Safe Functions, then you > can't define _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS. (And therefore you can't > define _POSIX_THREADS, which is sort of the reverse of the claim that if > you define _POSIX_THREADS then you must define > _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS.) Hmm, I've always read the "otherwise" case as making these functions optional, but now you've made me reread the clauses, I think I agree that _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS means these functions should be there. I think they should be in libc, not just libc_r. -- 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message