Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Lee Kindness writes: > > > 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". > > The problem with this is that the automatic determination (in configure) > whether there is a xxx_r() version is, in general, fragile. We cannot > rely on configure saying that xxx_r() doesn't exist, so the plain xxx() > should be good enough. Else, we'd be shipping claimed-to-be-thread-safe > libraries that might trigger bugs that will be hard to track down. > > I don't see any other solution than keeping a database of NEED_XXX_R for > each platform and then requiring these functions to show up before we > declare a library to be thread-safe. So far we're only dealing with three > functions, to it should be doable.
Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the normal function is thread-safe. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
