Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> writes:
>> The attached patch replaces the win32 mutex calls with critical section
>> calls. The change will not affect the behavior of the windows
>> pthread_xxx functions.
>
> Why have you defined the lock/unlock functions as willing to fall
> through silently if handed a null pointer? I think a crash in
> such a case is what we *want*. Silently not locking is surely
> not very safe.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Yeah, both naughty.
These functions were not implemented to spec. These pthread functions
are all supposed to return an int (which is an errno value). I was
trying not to change the existing prototypes ... should I? I can return
EINVAL if something is NULL and ENOMEM if the malloc fails ... or just
dump core.
If you like the return value idea, I can make all occurances of
pthread_xxx check the return value.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
