Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 08:33, Christophe Galerne wrote:
NB: PT_MUTEX_NORMAL is not a posix mutex type - it's PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL....
Right that was a typo.
The thing is it's not really an invalid value for 'type' in the call.Or you could check the return value from pthread_mutexattr_settype and see that it returns EINVAL.
Maybe it would be better to break the compilation of programs that
expect this value rather than have the developpers debug their applications
before figuring it out.
Come to think about it, I'm wondering if there was a policy of having the headers right first then the implementation or if headers and imlpementation
came together. But that's maybe not the right maillist for that. =:-D
Look at pthread.h:53 and pthread.h:58. DEFAULT is mapped to RECURSIVEAlso above pthread.h(57): #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER (void *)20 a comment that says that a default MUTEX will be recursive might avoid some surprise. =:-D
That's a good point. Onather solution that might be considered more elegant would be to rearrange the defines to make the default behavior self-explanatory. Ex. #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE 0 #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK 1 #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL 2 #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE Christophe -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
