This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: pthread.h: Add missing PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Ralf Corsepius <ralf dot corsepius at rtems dot org>
- Cc: "newlib at sourceware dot org" <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:20:32 -0600
- Subject: Re: pthread.h: Add missing PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER
- References: <50A12FAE.5040303@oarcorp.com> <50A13560.5040801@rtems.org> <50A13773.5090207@oarcorp.com> <50A20343.8050703@rtems.org>
I finally committed this with a typo fix.
2013-01-22 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
* libc/include/pthread.h: Add PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER.
Fix typo on PTHREAD_COJND_INITIALIZER.
--joel
On 11/13/2012 02:22 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/12/2012 06:52 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 11/12/2012 11:44 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/12/2012 06:19 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
Attached is a very simple 1 line patch which adds the
missing constant PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER and
makes it have the same value as the other similar
constants.
OK to commit?
No.
And can you explain why adding an accidentally missing constant
that is defined by Open Group gets a simple "No"
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/pthread_rwlock_init.html
This is added in the same style as the other PTHREAD_XXX_INITIALIZER
values and its absence has just been overlooked.
I realize, I should have been more verbose.
My "no" wasn't directed against adding the initializer #define,
it was directed against the implementation, because I incorrectly
had assumed pthread_rwlock_t to be a pointer.
So, go ahead and apply the patch.
Ralf
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35806
Support Available (256) 722-9985