Re: Unixware Patch (Was: Re: Beta2 Tag'd and Bundled ...)

ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
> > Olivier PRENANT wrote:
> > > >> It's ok to assume thread-safety, as the SCO developer (Kean Johnston)
> > > >> asked the threads guys, and he said that the libc stuff is
> > > >> thread-safe so they don't have to have 2 different versions in libc.
> > > >
> > > If any one can write a program that can prove anything (I can't), I'm
> > > willing to test it here on a bi-pro (bi PIII and bi-XEON with JT
> > > enabled) running uw713.
> > > Maybe it will end the discussion and make a point in either way. So that
> > > we (you?) can move on with the other unixware patches.
> >
> > You don't need a SMP machine to test threads.  You just need one thread
> > to do the function call, then another to do the function call and see if
> > the two pointers are different.  They calls don't have to happen at the
> > same time.  Ideally you could make call in the two threads with
> > different arguments, then after both calls are completed, test that the
> > two static areas have the proper _different_ values.
> >
> >
> Ok, I don't know much about threads; would you write a simple program for
> us to test?

OK, done, and attached.  It is also now in CVS as
src/tools/test_thread_funcs.c.

In hindsight, I should have done this long ago.  However, it only tests
the thread-safety of functions.  It does not completely test your threading
capability.

I would like every operating system that supports thread-safety to run
this program and report back the results.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073