Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:22:43 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: getc() and putc() as macros Message-ID: <200403131622.43705.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403131003190.5429-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 13 March 2004 07:05 am, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. I thought that was the kind of thing that _REENTRANT or _THREAD_SAFE are usually for? (*shudder*) -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403131622.43705.peter>