Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

Bruce Momjian writes:> Marc G. Fournier wrote:> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:> > > > > Yes, and that is
thecomplex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are> > > thread-safe, and some are not.  I have to determine if we
haveother> > > such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way.> > > > Long shot ... is there some
wayof writing a configure test for this?> > Right now, it sounds like we're going to be hitting alot of trial-n-error>
>if there isn't ...> > How would we test if a function is thread-safe?  I can't think of a> reliable way, and hence my
warningthat this adjusting could take a> while.
 

You don't... and you simply shouldn't care. If there is a_r version
available then we should use it - even if the plain version is "safe".

Just think of this as is it were a normal "port" issue. If an OS
doesn't have zxczxc_r() then we need to write a zxczxc_r() wrapper
function which calls zxczxc() and has the same signature as
zxczxc_r().

L.