This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 06:57:46PM -0400, Vermont Rutherfoord wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, at 09:57AM(-0700), H . J . Lu wrote: > > > > When you use putc/putchar, the lock is checked at the RUNTIME. That > > is where the overhead comes from. In fact, putc/putchar will call > > lock and then unlock. Without -lpthread, they are just empty functions. > > But there is still overhead for calling empty functions. If you don't > > want overhead, use putc_unlocked/putchar_unlocked. > > > > Is there any thought of providing a more transparent way to support > threadedness? As it is, I cringe to think that the basic libc i/o > functions are suffering a slowdown, which could significantly affect > interactivity of a i/o heavy system. What happened to the thought of > leaving thread safety turned off unless REENTRANT is defined? You have to ask it on the glibc mailing list. H.J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |