> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 27 June 2004 01:23
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:45:51PM +0100, Mark Thornton wrote:
> >Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Beware, I found this:
> >>>>2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> * libc/include/stdio.h: no getc/putc macros for cygwin; causes
> >>>> compatibility issues with different dll versions
> >>>>so you may need to recompile when updating cygwin.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Also wouldn't that work around the file locks that were
> ostensibly put
> >>>there for a reason?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>That crossed my mind. But there is no file lock in the
> macro, which is
> >>used by systems other than cygwin. How do they manage it?
> >>I also assume that single threaded programs don't need the lock.
> >>
> >Is the lock to ensure that normal POSIX append semantics are obtained
> >when two processes are writing to the same file? Normal win32
> >behaviour would tend to overwrite whatever had been written by the
> >other process
>
> No. newlib is supposed to be OS agnostic. The locks are certainly
> for multi-threaded purposes.
>
> Anyone who is interested could always ask in the newlib mailing list.
> newlib sourceware org.
>
> cgf
Those flockfile calls are part of Tom Pfaff's recent fixes to make stdio
multithread-safe. Without them you can't even have multiple threads calling
printf at the same time without their outputs corrupting each other.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
