Forgot to say one thing...
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 12:44:57 +0900, SODA Noriyuki said:
>> How about other functions? Does it make sense to follow POSIX standard
>> to implement the missing functions in netbsd?
> In general, it's not recommended to add a stub function which returns
> ENOSYS (i
> On Wed, 18 May 2016 20:31:08 -0700,
Charles Cui said:
> How about other functions? Does it make sense to follow POSIX standard
> to implement the missing functions in netbsd?
In general, it's not recommended to add a stub function which returns
ENOSYS (i.e. "Function not implemente
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 01:13:09 +0200,
Martin Husemann said:
> int pthread_barrierattr_setpshared(pthread_barrierattr_t *attr,
>int pshared)
> {
> return EINVAL;
> }
I think the following is better:
int pthread_barrierattr_setpshared(pthread_barrierattr_t *attr,
i
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:40:38PM -0700, Charles Cui wrote:
>*functions with missing features*:
>pthread_barrierattr_getpshared
>pthread_barrierattr_setpshared
Effectively:
int pthread_barrierattr_getpshared(const pthread_barrierattr_t
*restrict attr, int *restrict pshared)
{
Hi guys,
I spent some time on pthread libraries in netbsd which is a big part in
my project, and have some questions to ask.
Taking pthread_barrierattr_getpshared, pthread_barrierattr_setpshared
as an example. These functions are used to getting and setting barrierattr
data structure. netbsd
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:31:09PM -0700, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> ...is at
>
> https://www.netbsd.org/~agc/bozo-20160517.diff
>
> Does anyone have any objections?
Hm, -v and -V are taken already? I guess, then go with it.
-is
