Bruce Momjian writes: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Yes, and that is the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are > > > thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other > > > such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way. > > > > Long shot ... is there some way of writing a configure test for this? > > Right now, it sounds like we're going to be hitting alot of trial-n-error > > if there isn't ... > > How would we test if a function is thread-safe? I can't think of a > reliable way, and hence my warning that this adjusting could take a > while.
You don't... and you simply shouldn't care. If there is a_r version available then we should use it - even if the plain version is "safe". Just think of this as is it were a normal "port" issue. If an OS doesn't have zxczxc_r() then we need to write a zxczxc_r() wrapper function which calls zxczxc() and has the same signature as zxczxc_r(). L. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])