Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:08:39 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 194280] pthread_cleanup_push, pthread_cleanup_pop manual pages are missing critical usage information. Message-ID: <bug-194280-9-xE76KZJ0qm@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-194280-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-194280-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194280 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Triage |In Discussion CC| |jhb@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #2 from John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> --- I went with language similar to that of POSIX: The pthread_cleanup_push() function is implemented as a macro that opens a new block. Invocations of this function must appear as standalone statements that are paired with a later call of pthread_cleanup_pop(3) in the same lexical scope. for push and The pthread_cleanup_push() function is implemented as a macro that closes a block. Invocations of this function must appear as standalone state- ments that are paired with an earlier call of pthread_cleanup_push(3) in the same lexical scope. "same lexical scope" already implies same code block in same function. I don't know that we need to explicitly call out the that using the API incorrectly will result in compile errors. The same is true of any number of other APIs (e.g. trying to pass a pointer to the getchar() or putchar() "functions" (which are also macros). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-194280-9-xE76KZJ0qm>