pthread_create -- no callback?

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lassi A. Tuura" <lassi.tuura@cern.ch>
To: "Evan Pollan" <evan_pollan@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>;
<cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: pthread_create -- no callback?


> > That's all I needed.  My experience is very stale w/ C & C++, but
why didn't I
> > get at least a compilation warning when I passed the reference to
the thread,
> > rather than its value?
>
> Because pthread_t == void *.  I am sure cygwin team would accept
> a patch that consistently uses for example an opaque type[*].  I
> suppose it might be a lot of simple-minded editing, but it would
> help catch a lot of trivial errors.

Yes, in fact void * was intended to serve the same purpose (as opposed
to a fully defined struct which the prior implementation had.

> [*] Like this: `struct __pthread; typedef __pthread *pthread_t;'.

Thank you. I've put this in my mail archive and will do a patch at some
point - if noone beats me to it that is :].

> This is all the client side knows about `__pthread', hence it is
> opaque.  The struct is defined in the implementation only.  Works
> of course only if the implementation really uses structs.  From a
> superficial inspection there's a 'pthread' class on cygwin side so
> it would work, but I couldn't quite figure out where the code made
> the transition from pthread_t == void * to pthread_t == pthread *.

Inside cygwin,
pthread_t == class pthread **

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/