--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 18:12:48 -0400 Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Rosenman wrote:it's CLEANER to use it.
--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 19:53:38 +0200 Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lee Kindness writes: > >> Bruce Momjian writes: >> > Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the >> > normal function is thread-safe. > >> That's not our concern - if the OS isn't thread safe we can't do >> anything about it, and to worry about it is an enormous waste of >> development time. > > There is a long way between configure not finding a particular *_r > function and the entire operating system not being thread-safe. There > are many uncertainties along that way, and I believe my point was that > the only way we can get a degree of certainty about the result of a > particular build is that we keep a database of exactly what is > required for thread-safety on each platform. Ok, now, is my statement from a SCO Developer good enough to get thread-safety enabled on UnixWare with only the getpwuid_r() function?
Woh, I thought we just agreed that getpwuid_r() isn't required for thread-safety on your platform.
Our API Signature is the _r version, why not use it when it's available?
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
