Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:56:34 +0000
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: why is pthread_key_create failing?
Message-ID: <20071106155634.GK3795@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <200711061512.15518.bruno@clisp.org> <20071106153026.GA1203@calimero.vinschen.de> <20071106154550.GB1203@calimero.vinschen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20071106154550.GB1203@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Hi,

Corinna Vinschen, le Tue 06 Nov 2007 16:45:50 +0100, a écrit :
> Heh, I just re-read the whole discussion at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin%40cygwin.com/msg49835.html again,
> and it's interesting how the point of view changes with another
> testcase.  Pity.  Returning EBUSY really looked like a good idea.

Mmm, the "Non-Idempotent Data Key Creation" section only says that some
behavior was rejected because there is other ways to achieve it.  But to
me it does not mean that EBUSY would be a good idea.  What explicitely
says that you shouldn't reuse a pthread_key_t?

Samuel

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/