On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 12:49:36PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > > It has nothing to do with file locking, but rather locking in the sense > of thread-safety. A programmer can call the _unlocked version of a > number of functions when he is sure that the application only has one > thread, and avoid a very slight penalty of having to set a mutex before > modifying the data structures. >[...] > Furthermore, these _unlocked functions are *not* standardized functions, > they are GNU extensions, and this means the programmer has made his code > unportable by assuming they exist without the aid of a configure test. > This is a bad thing to do. > > Brian
Shouldn't the existance of .*_unlocked functions come into scope after defining _REENTRANT ? I know that even on Solaris, you will see malloc_unlocked() etc. calls, but mainly in threads programs. Even including a threaded header (pthreads.h, thread.h) should define _REENTRANT, so the specific definition isn't necessarily required but I just wonder why a developer would go out of their way to even call these backend functions. Bad mojo there for sure. -cl -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
