reentrant functions

Bernd Schmidt bernds_cb1 at
Sun Jun 8 12:18:03 UTC 2008

Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> Just to make sure i understand correctly:
> - If a reentrant function exists then you want the non-reentrant func to
>   be optional (via a central knob).
> - If non-reentrant funcs are off then they are aliased to their
>   reentrant counterpart.

No, they have different calling conventions, so they'd just not exist.

> What about the reverse, i.e. dropping *_r()?

One of the gains from dropping the non-reentrant ones comes from 
eliminating static arrays.  In current uClibc, these static arrays are 
eliminated by the use of uc_malloc, which has the drawback that all of 
these functions can suddenly call exit, contrary to their documentation. 
  I'd like to get that reverted.

> Think about no threads, i don't really need *_r() at all there, i
> suppose.

It would be better if the caller provided the buffers, so that they 
don't have to exist in uClibc.  It's the better interface.

This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH      Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6      80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif

More information about the uClibc mailing list