Re: last call

[Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>]

On 29 Jan 1999 07:58:21 -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) writes:
>
>> Can we add support to _NOT_REENTRANT? When _NOT_REENTRANT is defined,
>> we pick the xxx_unlocked instead of xxx in stdio. It will make life
>> much easier for everyone.
>
>That's not true.  It simply opens a can of worms.

Besides, it's completely nonstandard.  If we wanted to have this option, we
ought to default to xxx_unlocked and require you #define _REENTRANT to get
the locking versions.  (This is how Solaris, Irix, etc. do it.)

But there are better ways to do it: we could put unlocked stdio entrypoints
in libc and override them with locking versions in libpthread, or we could
simply reduce the overhead of the locking versions in the no-thread case (I
think we already do something like this with inline functions).

zw