Subject: Re: pthreads plan
To: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
Date: 11/06/1999 11:54:53
Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> email@example.com (Charles M. Hannum) writes:
> > > What about something like this?
> > >
> > > _getc(): no multithreaded support
> > > _getc_MT(): locking
> > >
> > > and in the header file:
> > > #if defined(_REENTRANT)
> > > rename(getc, _getc_MT);
> > > #else
> > > rename(getc, _getc);
> > > #endif
> > That doesn't really help, since getc() is a macro.
> Ok, I chose the wrong function to give an example against, but if you
> replace getc with, say, printf, would this idea work?
That depends on the goal. You could probably get as much just by
The problem is, this still allows cases of thread-safe and
non-thread-safe functions to be mixed, because the choice of which
function to use ends up compiled into each module that uses it. I
don't think this is what Greg was asking for.
(OTOH, I'm not convinced it's actually a problem, either.)