--- Peter Pentchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 12:01:51AM +, Robert
> Watson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> >
> > > I have a desire to fix posix semaphores in at
> least 5.3. The current
> > > implementation doesn't actually follow the
> "s
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 12:01:51AM +, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>
> > I have a desire to fix posix semaphores in at least 5.3. The current
> > implementation doesn't actually follow the "spirit" of the standard,
> > even though it technically qualifies i
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> I have a desire to fix posix semaphores in at least 5.3. The current
> implementation doesn't actually follow the "spirit" of the standard,
> even though it technically qualifies in a somewhat degraded sense. I
> refer to the fact that the current implem
I have a desire to fix posix semaphores in at least 5.3. The current
implementation doesn't actually follow the "spirit" of the standard,
even though it technically qualifies in a somewhat degraded sense. I
refer to the fact that the current implementation treats posix
semaphores as completely co
