Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/11/11/12:34:32
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:04:20PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > That's not a problem at all. The non _r calls are not meant to
> > be thread safe so they may use static local buffers legally.
>
> We have two distinct issues: 1): Thread safe. 2) Having valid pointers
> after the passwd/grp file is updated, in a single threaded program.
> The static buffers flunk both, they can only flunk 1).
But 2 is not an issue. The appl. called getpwuid once and then the
static buffer contains data. That's it. The *next* call copies
other data into the static buffer. Is there any sense to keep the
static buffer in sync even though the application doesn't call
the function again? I don't think so. It's even dangerous.
> > You didn't send patches, just a ChangeLog entry.
> For #1 and #2 I sent patches as attachment (from Netscape). I just looked
> at the web, the patches show up as part of the messages
> For #3 there was always a short patch inside the e-mail.
I didn't get any email in October so I only saw your patch #4.
I thought we would start from the beginning when I return from
vacation.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -