[Fwd: [gp@familiehaase.de: sem_* functions in cygwin]]

Gerrit P. Haase gp@familiehaase.de
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
>>by accident?
>>----- 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
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

More information about the Cygwin mailing list