Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread AgentM
According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists. pthread_mutexattr_get/settype(...) functions are defined by X/Open XSH5 (Unix98). I would suggest writing a wrapper for OSs that don't implement recursive locks (it's easy enough to make your own implementation- just chec

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Philip Yarra
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote: > According to POSIX 1003.1c-1995, no such mutex-altering function exists. Thanks for the info - useful to know. > lock the mutex- potentially again). Either that or the recursive locks > can be eliminated. Avoiding recursive locks is my preference - t

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
BSD/OS supports: The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c (``POSIX''). How is that different from UNIX98? --- Philip Yarra wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:58 am, AgentM wrote: > > According to POSIX

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG thread success (kind of) on Linux

2003-06-26 Thread Philip Yarra
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:16 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > BSD/OS supports: > > The pthreads library conforms to IEEE Std1003.1c > (``POSIX''). > > How is that different from UNIX98? Just checked up on this: apparently version "g" of the standard does contain such manipulation functions...