[vdr] Re: [FINAL TESTING]: text2skin 1.0-rc1

[Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de>]

Gunnar Roth wrote:
> ...
> > Rainer Zocholl wrote:
> >
> > > Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de(Klaus Schmidinger)  03.01.05 10:51
> > >
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > > Just for the record: there will be _no_ poisoning in the official 
> > > > VDR source.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because VDR will no longer use any non-threadsafe library functions!
> >
> > > Do you like to hunt phantom errors and like unreliability? ;-)
> > >
> > > I don't see no reason to place such mean booby traps for the
> > > other programmers in the code/make file.
> > >
> > > So what's the reason to allow the usage of non threadsafe non
> > > reentrant libray call in a heavily multi threaded environment?
> >
> > Since VDR won't use any non threadsafe library functions, what
> > would be the point in "poisoning"?
> to "guarantee" that none of the non threadsafe functions are used maybe?
> to force plugins not to use this non-thread functions?
>
> regards,
> gunnar
So whenever there's a new non-threadsafe library function, would you
expect VDR to "poison" that one, too? Even though by itself it doesn't
use any of them?

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.
If plugin authors want to avoid non-threadsafe functions (which they should,
of course), they need to be careful by themselves. Maybe there should be
some compiler switch that flags such functions as errors, but don't put
the burdon on VDR.

Klaus