[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS problem with ssh

From: Derek Price
Subject: Re: CVS problem with ssh
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:00:25 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

Richard M. Stallman wrote:

>    Why not have glibc incorporate the moral equivalent of the "unlocked"
>    stdio routines (fwrite_unlocked, printf_unlocked, etc.), like
>    fwrite_block?
>I am not sure what "unlocked" means, 

I'm referring to the non-thread-safe stdio variants exported by glibc
and supported as a GNULIB module.

>but any solution like this would
>only work on GNU.  It would be better to use an equally simple
>approach that will work on other systems also: to define simple
>functions inside CVS to replace fwrite, fprintf, etc.

Not exactly.  If a solution like this were to go into GLIBC, then it
becomes much more likely that it can be shared with GNULIB, which means
that the infrastructure for it is already in CVS and that supporting it
won't rely exclusively on the extremely small and overworked CVS team. 
Even if it isn't shared with GNULIB, we can probably rely on the GLIBC
folks to handle portability issues and import a file or two from GLIBC
directly into the CVS tree.

>My suggestion is to write a function cvs_fprintf that uses vsnprintf
>and alloca so as to generate the entire message, and then calls fwrite
>in a suitable loop with select to output the message.  That should be
>simple enough.  How about it?
>I will write the function for you if you don't want to write it.
>It would give me an opportunity to restudy how varargs works.

Again, I am less afraid of writing this than maintaining it, though I
feel I have the time to do neither just now.  The whole of stdio would
need replacement functions in CVS for this to work consistently: fwrite,
fflush, fprintf, printf, etc. - not just fwrite and not just fprintf. 
If anyone were to contribute such a complete patch, I would consider it
more seriously, still subject, of course, to further comment from the
other CVS developers.

To summarize, if such a patch were accepted into GNULIB, I would have no
problem importing the module into CVS.  Only accepted into GLIBC, I
would have to think about it some more and examine how easy it would be
to make the wrappers stand-alone.  Applied only to CVS, I remain
reluctant to accept the probable maintenance cost but may consider a
complete patch, pending further comment from the other CVS developers
and the results of tests on diverse platforms.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]