Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> >
> > >-On [20030908 23:52], Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Why would FreeBSD have a "library of thread-safe libc functions" (libc_r)
> > >>if the functions weren't thread-safe? I think the test is faulty.
> > >>
> > >>
> > A thread-safe library has a per-thread errno value (i.e. errno is a
> > #define to a function call), thread-safe io buffers for stdio, etc. Some
> > of these changes cause a noticable overhead, thus a seperate library for
> > those users who want to avoid that overhead.
> >
> > Reentrancy is independant from _r: If you look at the prototype of
> > gethostbyname(), it's just not possible to make that thread safe with
> > reasonable effort - the C library would have to keep one buffer per
> > thread around.
>
> See the top of src/port/thread.c --- that's exactly what is does (keep
> one buffer per thread around).
>
> * Threading sometimes requires specially-named versions of functions
> * that return data in static buffers, like strerror_r() instead of
> * strerror(). Other operating systems use pthread_setspecific()
> * and pthread_getspecific() internally to allow standard library
> * functions to return static data to threaded applications.
And that's exactly what src/tools/test_thread_funcs.c tests for.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073