Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 18:12:48 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 19:53:38 +0200 Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>> > Lee Kindness writes:
>> >
>> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> >> > Right. We can't assume because a *_r function is missing that the
>> >> > normal function is thread-safe.
>> >
>> >> That's not our concern - if the OS isn't thread safe we can't do
>> >> anything about it, and to worry about it is an enormous waste of
>> >> development time.
>> >
>> > There is a long way between configure not finding a particular *_r
>> > function and the entire operating system not being thread-safe. There
>> > are many uncertainties along that way, and I believe my point was that
>> > the only way we can get a degree of certainty about the result of a
>> > particular build is that we keep a database of exactly what is
>> > required for thread-safety on each platform.
>> Ok, now, is my statement from a SCO Developer good enough to get
>> thread-safety enabled
>> on UnixWare with only the getpwuid_r() function?
>
> Woh, I thought we just agreed that getpwuid_r() isn't required for
> thread-safety on your platform.
it's CLEANER to use it.

Our API Signature is the _r version, why not use it when it's available?

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749