Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:26:49 +0100
From:      Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at>
To:        Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Cc:        standards@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: sem_timedwait()
Message-ID:  <20040203082647.GA598@wombat.fafoe.narf.at>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402030111330.28910-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402030111330.28910-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:14:22AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> We need a prototype for sem_timedwait().  Here's a patch, but it doesn't
> seem to be consistent WRT __restrict.  Does someone want to take a look
> at the POSIX specs (www.opengroup.org) and see if this is correct?
> 
> Index: semaphore.h
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /opt/FreeBSD/cvs/src/sys/posix4/semaphore.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.9
> diff -u -r1.9 semaphore.h
> --- semaphore.h	4 Oct 2002 21:31:33 -0000	1.9
> +++ semaphore.h	3 Feb 2004 00:40:12 -0000
> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
>  int	 sem_init(sem_t *, int, unsigned int);
>  sem_t	*sem_open(const char *, int, ...);
>  int	 sem_post(sem_t *);
> +int	 sem_timedwait(sem_t * __restrict, struct timespec * __restrict);

According to SUSv3 the second parameter's type should be
'const struct timespec * restrict'.  restrict-wise it's correct.

Cheers,
Stefan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040203082647.GA598>