On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 01:36:43AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > I don't see why a plain function like mkstemp() should be written so
> > > specially. Couldn't all the hiding/changing done for threads be done
> > > w/in open() itself? Neither HP-UX 10.30 (which has kernel threads), nor
> > > Solaris 7 needs such open() hackery in mkstemp().
> >
> > Given where we want to go with pthreads, and the proposed architecture,
> > I'm not sure why we need to have open -> _libc_open -> __open (or
> > whatever it is). Why isn't using _open internally in libc sufficient?
> > open is a weak symbol for _open, and libpthread can override the open
> > (weak symbol).
>
> Is this email being ignored?
No, I was just busy doing other things.
There is potentially one good reason to leave these changes in place for
now: they allow proper thread cancellation in libc_r as it stands right
now. This seems to me like a good enough reason to leave the changes as is
until our grand new threads library is realized. However, I agree that in
the end we will want to simplify the libc symbol naming.
I'm planning on checking in libc_r cancellation changes today that use the
current libc symbol naming setup. As soon as we're not using libc_r
anymore I'll be glad to simplify the symbol naming.
Jason
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
