[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       apr-dev
Subject:    Re: 1.6 release timetable
From:       Florian Weimer <fw () deneb ! enyo ! de>
Date:       2017-03-25 15:42:47
Message-ID: 87vaqxnz0o.fsf () mid ! deneb ! enyo ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

* Yann Ylavic:

>> It's been a bit of a struggle to get this right.
>
> I think the confusion comes from the term "directory stream", which
> people (at least me :p ) may read as underlying directory (i.e.
> filesystem's), though it's the term used to talk about the DIR* in the
> whole man page...

> I now realize that there is no real thread-safety issue, it indeed
> shouldn't happen to call readdir() concurrently on the same DIR, IMHO
> the doc should say that it's simply undefined behaviour (actually I
> thought it was the case with readdir_r too, so the readdir_r part is
> the misleading one I think).

Thanks for this feedback.

>> I think the Solaris manual also does not mark readdir as thread-safe,
>> implicitly suggesting to use readdir_r in multi-threaded programs.
>> But this suggestion isn't helpful on Solaris, either.
>
> So Solaris' readdir() does not return static data either.

Right.

> Any idea of which system keeps doing this?

No one who monitors the Austin Groups tracker for POSIX issues does
it, otherwise they would have spoken out against the readdir_r
deprecation.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]