This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes?
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Peng Haitao <penght at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, "linux-man\ at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:38:20 -0200
- Subject: Re: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54A2C8A6 dot 9050100 at redhat dot com> <ork318eoj4 dot fsf at livre dot home> <20141230230529 dot GT4574 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <orfvbwegqg dot fsf at livre dot home> <54A377B8 dot 60802 at redhat dot com>
On Dec 31, 2014, "Carlos O'Donell" <email@example.com> wrote:
> That is not the definition of reentrancy that I had in mind.
Since reentrant is such an overloaded term, how about using the term
Recursion-Safe, that AFAICT covers only the concept you have in mind.
Another possible term that occurs to me is Synchronously Reentrant, to
indicate it doesn't cover asynchronous reentrancy out of signals or
multiple threads. We could then shorten it as SR-Safe.
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer