Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
At 04:58 PM 1/26/2001 +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:02:21PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> > Kinda both. Perl5 threads are irredeemably broken, and IMHO should be
> > excised from the source as soon as possible - leaving them in only gives
> > the mistaken impression that they might actually work some day. The
> > MT-unsafe behaviour of the current eval mechanism when used with threads
> > is just one of the reasons why they are so broken.
>
>And another. We're using gethostbyname. To quote an online Sun manpage:
>
>The functions gethostbyname() , gethostbyaddr() , and gethostent() use
>static storage that is reused in each call, making these functions unsafe
>for use in multi-threaded applications.
>
>The functions gethostbyname_r() , gethostbyaddr_r() , and gethostent_r()
>provide reentrant interfaces for these operations.
>
>[however, I don't know whether that many platforms provide the latter's
>functionality, and if so if they even use the same names]
It depends on your platform--some have threadsafe gethost* calls and don't
need the _r version, and some don't. (And some aren't threadsafe but don't
have _r versions...)
It's pretty much a crapshoot, unfortunately.
>How many other non thread-safe interfaces is perl5 using?
Oh, lots probably. Even more when you factor in other people's XS code,
though that's not strictly fair.
>[actually, is that important - how much of C's undefined behaviour is
>perl5 source actually relying on]
Don't even ask that question--I'd bet we don't really want the answer... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next