Hello,
I have probably missed something...
I'm on NetBSD 8.0.
In order to have only standard definitions in , I have to
define not standard macro _STANDALONE due to inclusion of
(that does not only contain declarations but definitions of functions?
In a header?).
Shouldn't it be the reverse,
On 17.04.2019 19:28, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Wed, 17 Apr 2019 19:02:47 +0200
> From:Kamil Rytarowski
> Message-ID:
>
> Thanks, and
>
> | +typedef pthread_t thrd_t;
>
> is a very clear answer to the question... Unless anyone
> has any objections to tha
Date:Wed, 17 Apr 2019 19:02:47 +0200
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID:
Thanks, and
| +typedef pthread_tthrd_t;
is a very clear answer to the question... Unless anyone
has any objections to that method, I think we can ignore the
(possible) posix requirement
On 17.04.2019 18:52, Robert Elz wrote:
> I have seen this question:
>
> does anyone know of an implementation that has pthreads and
> C11/C17 threads, with pthread_t and thrd_t defined as different types?
>
> As best I can tell in NetBSD we do not have a thrd_t at all (but I
> might b
I have seen this question:
does anyone know of an implementation that has pthreads and
C11/C17 threads, with pthread_t and thrd_t defined as different types?
As best I can tell in NetBSD we do not have a thrd_t at all (but I
might be missing something). If we do, or someday we m
co...@sdf.org writes:
I too was not happy about the notion that librefuse should be
deprecated.
> librefuse is matching the newer FUSE APIs. it's not matching the older.
> The filesystems want the older high-level API.
I have looked into this slightly. I had the impression from the list
that fi
