[Fwd: [gp@familiehaase.de: sem_* functions in cygwin]]
Gerrit P. Haase
gp@familiehaase.de
Sun Dec 12 13:54:00 GMT 2004
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> [Catching up on some older mails]
>
>
>>----- Forwarded message from "Gerrit P. Haase" -----
>>From: "Gerrit P. Haase"
>>To: cygwin ML
>>Subject: sem_* functions in cygwin
>>Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:48:20 +0100
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>nearly all sem_* functions are available, but sem_unlock is missing,
>>was there a problem implementing sem_unlock() or was it just missed
>>by accident?
>>
>>
>>Gerrit
>>----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
> I guess you're asking about sem_unlink(). It's not implemented so far
> since named POSIX semaphores are implemented using named Windows semaphores.
> The SUSv3 description contains a pretty unfortunate implementation detail:
>
> Calls to sem_open() to recreate or reconnect to the semaphore refer
> to a new semaphore after sem_unlink() is called.
>
> There's no way I know of, which allows to implement this using named
> Windows semaphores. At least not without adding a lot of annoying
> bookkeeping overhead, possibly involving cygserver.
I got an undefined reference to sem_unlock().
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
--
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/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list