Lee Kindness <lkindness@csl.co.uk> writes:
> Guys, too much thought is being spent on this...
> 1. For the _r functions we "need" we should ALWAYS use them if the
> system we are building on has them - they WILL be thread-safe.
> 2. If the system is missing a _r function then we implement a wrapper
> to call the normal non-_r version. However we do NOT make this wrapper
> call thread-safe - we assume the non-_r version already is.
That assumption is exactly what Peter is unhappy about. With the above
approach we will happily build a "thread safe" library on systems that
are in fact not thread safe at all. Peter wants --enable-thread-safety
to fail on non-safe systems.
regards, tom lane