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 the complex part because _some_ non-*_r functions are
> > > thread-safe, and some are not. I have to determine if we have other
> > > such platforms before I figure out how to fix it in the cleanest way.
> >
> > Long shot ... is there some way of 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 warning that 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.