Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:24:40 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Testers wanted: reentrant resolver Message-ID: <200402210024.i1L0OfAi014196@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402201906010.5704-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > Ugh, can you put h_errno inside the per-thread res stuff. > We shouldn't need to have to add special hooks in the > threads libraries for this. Please explain what you're saying further. On correctly-threaded operating systems, h_errno is just like errno -- and I made it act EXACTLY as errno acts, and is per-thread storage for everything but the first thread. It's absolutely necessary if we want to return the correct errors; even if everything else in the world is totally reentrant, if h_errno isn't, the wrong errors can be returned! What "special hooks" do you mean? There's no way to not change probably hundreds of lines of code without actually doing the work to make h_errno thread-safe. It's the only proper thing to do. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402210024.i1L0OfAi014196>