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

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> > Greg Stark writes:
> >
> > > Um. I don't think that's true. I mean, in theory it's true, but in practice
> > > why would an OS have some *_r but have only non-thread-safe versions of
> > > others?
> >
> > The question is whether configure can reliably identify whether various
> > *_r functions exist.  I think it can't.  For example, they could be in a
> > separate library that we don't know about.
> 
> 'K,  but isn't that just a matter of adding an extra test when such
> 'extra libraries' are identified?  I've seen it before, in order
> configures, where it tests for the same function in a couple of different
> libraries ...

We do have tests for *_r functions now in configure.in, and it does use
any thread-specific library/compiler flags defined in the OS template.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073