This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [Fwd: [email@example.com: sem_* functions in cygwin]]
- From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gp at familiehaase dot de>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:54:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: [firstname.lastname@example.org: sem_* functions in cygwin]]
- Organization: Esse keine toten Tiere
- References: <20041209164442.GA25246@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[Catching up on some older mails]
----- Forwarded message from "Gerrit P. Haase" -----
From: "Gerrit P. Haase"
To: cygwin ML
Subject: sem_* functions in cygwin
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:48:20 +0100
nearly all sem_* functions are available, but sem_unlock is missing,
was there a problem implementing sem_unlock() or was it just missed
----- End forwarded message -----
I guess you're asking about sem_unlink(). It's not implemented so far
since named POSIX semaphores are implemented using named Windows semaphores.
The SUSv3 description contains a pretty unfortunate implementation detail:
Calls to sem_open() to recreate or reconnect to the semaphore refer
to a new semaphore after sem_unlink() is called.
There's no way I know of, which allows to implement this using named
Windows semaphores. At least not without adding a lot of annoying
bookkeeping overhead, possibly involving cygserver.
I got an undefined reference to sem_unlock().
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html