Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:05:14 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
Cc:        threads@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040313112719.GA18628@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:

> The patch below re-adds macro versions of getc(), getchar(), putc(),
> putchar(), feof(), ferror(), fileno() and clearerr(), using the value of
> __isthreaded to decide between the fast inline single-threaded code and
> the more general function equivalent (as suggested by Alfred). Is this
> approach safe?

I don't really like this.  It exposes __isthreaded and others
that are implementation.

-- 
Dan Eischen



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000>