Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[Catching up on some older mails]
- Forwarded message from Gerrit P. Haase -
From: Gerrit P. Haase To: cygwin ML
Subject: sem_* functions in cygwin
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:48:20 +0100
Hi,
nearly all sem_* functions are available, but
On Dec 20 12:23, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I got an undefined reference to sem_unlock().
I don't remember now which package it was, however there is a maro
used in linux which is based on ipc_unlock():
#define sem_unlock(id) ipc_unlock(sem_ids,id)
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[Catching up on some older mails]
- Forwarded message from Gerrit P. Haase -
From: Gerrit P. Haase
To: cygwin ML
Subject: sem_* functions in cygwin
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:48:20 +0100
Hi,
nearly all sem_* functions are available, but sem_unlock is missing,
was
[Catching up on some older mails]
- Forwarded message from Gerrit P. Haase -
From: Gerrit P. Haase
To: cygwin ML
Subject: sem_* functions in cygwin
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:48:20 +0100
Hi,
nearly all sem_* functions are available, but sem_unlock is missing,
was there a
On Dec 9 09:50, Mark Paulus wrote:
So, does that mean that if process 1 opens a semaphore,
process 2 also grabs it, then process 1 unlinks it, and then
reconnects to it, that process 1 and process 2 do not have
and cannot have the same semaphore anymore, even though
they are using the same
5 matches
Mail list logo