Question about the use of _newlib_flockfile_* in newlib

[Jeff Johnston]

On 12/17/2012 05:53 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 17 10:06, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have two questions on _newlib_flockfile_*.
>> 1.
>> _fputc_r calls _putc_r to do the job, but both of them calls
>> _newlib_flockfile_*. Is it OK? Why if it is.
>
> I'm not quite sure, but I think the reason is that putc and, in analogy,
> _putc_r might be defined as macro.  Newlib doesn't do that by default
> for _putc_r, but target-specific code could.
>
>> 2. In most functions, the macro ORIENT() is guarded by
>> _newlib_flockfile_*, but it is not in _puts_r. Anything special or
>> just missed something?
>
> I had a look into the CVS annotation and it seems that this is not about
> ORIENT, but about the fact that the __sfvwrite_r call in _puts_r was
> never guarded by a flockfile/funlockfile (the predecessor of
> _newlib_flockfile_start/_newlib_flockfile_end).
>
> I don't know why, though.  Jeff?
>

Don't know why this is the case.  Perhaps puts used to call fputs 
previously which has the lock protection so the locks were never needed. 
  I can't see any reason not to add them in the present case.

-- Jeff J.
>
> Corinna
>