[vdr] Re: Version of 1.3 that works ?

[Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>]

I demand that Rainer Zocholl may or may not have written...

> linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk(Darren Salt)  15.12.04 20:12
>> I demand that Luca Olivetti may or may not have written...
>>> Rainer Zocholl wrote:
>>>> try 1.3.17 with the thread save patches(you MUST apply them!)
>>> It's not necessary if your glibc is compiled with thread local storage
>>> enabled (as is the case with mandrake 10.0).
>> Marking certain variables __thread may be a Good Idea.

> That will not compile under 2.95... (I thought i have posted?)

Maybe you did; I don't remember...

> Too it makes, for example, no sense to have the "base time" thread
> specific, as there is only one "base time" in vdr.

> Of cause there are places where a __thread would make sense to store thread
> spezific data. But it's not gnerally a good idea, IMHO.

The statically-allocated variable in the thread-unsafe functions would be a
good place for this.

>> Even so, not everybody's using TLS,

> or can use it at all. I don't know how i can get a /lib/tls in my debian
> 3.0. [...]

backports.org?

>> so the thread-safe patches are still useful...

> "thread local data" does *not* mean that this functions become "reentrance
> safe"! That can't be done so easy as the compiler does not know if the
> programmer did the recursive call intentionally or not. [...]

Yes - as you say, recursion's where __thread goes pear-shaped :-)

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| Debian,     | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| RISC OS     | @                             | Toon Army
|   <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.packages.html>

What if there were no hypothetical situations?