[Fwd: [firstname.lastname@example.org: sem_* functions in cygwin]]
Gerrit P. Haase
Sun Dec 12 13:54:00 GMT 2004
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
More information about the Cygwin