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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)
Date: 2003-09-03 21:09:49
Message-ID: 200309032109.h83L9nJ28041@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, September 03, 2003 16:51:51 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> > From UnixWare:
> >>
> >> $ cc -O -Kpthread test_thread.c -o test_thread -lsocket -lnsl
> >> UX:acomp: WARNING: "test_thread.c", line 60: argument #3 incompatible
> >> with prototype: pthread_create()
> >> UX:acomp: WARNING: "test_thread.c", line 61: argument #3 incompatible
> >> with prototype: pthread_create()
> >> $ ./test_thread
> >> Your functions are all thread-safe
> >> $
> >
> > Well, that's great news, and so clear too!
> >
> > I am curious about the compiler warnings.
> >
> > What does your OS want for the 3rd argument of pthread_create()? I
> > thought a void pointer would be OK for everyone:
> >
> > pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, (void *) func_call_1, NULL);
>
> void *(*start_routine)(void*)
>
> Here is our man page:
> http://lerami.lerctr.org:8458/en/man/html.3pthread/pthread_create.3pthread.
> html

Yes, that's what I have too. What if you have the functions taking
(void *) rather than void. Does that make the warnings disappear?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kurt Roeckx 2003-09-03 21:20:40 Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-03 21:01:58 Re: Planning to force reindex of hash indexes