Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:22:51 -0500 From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <k.keithley@opengroup.org> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS and *_r functions Message-ID: <34F7128B.106D@opengroup.org> References: <199802271919.GAA17326@cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Birrell wrote: > > 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. Yup, the rationale says they're "useful even for non-threaded programs" so you can have _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS but not _POSIX_THREADS, to indicate that the functions exist. -- Kaleb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34F7128B.106D>