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

--On Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:20:14 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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.
So, given that UnixWare doesn't have gethostbyname_r and strerror_r, but
does have
getpwuid_r, will y'all declare that UnixWare has thread-safety?

My vote is YES.

LER

--
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