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(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