Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #810
| From | Mark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads |
| Message-ID | <2012010520521532449-madler@alumnicaltechedu> (permalink) |
| References | <2012010123141758633-madler@alumnicaltechedu> <4F01C405.C964D503@web.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1201030024050.11715@login04.caesar.elte.hu> |
| Subject | Re: Is volatile so bad? |
| Date | 2012-01-05 20:52 -0800 |
On 2012-01-02 15:50:20 -0800, Ersek, Laszlo said: > On the other hand, I notice the pigz-2.1.7 tarball doesn't contain the > _XOPEN_SOURCE (or _POSIX_C_SOURCE) strings anywhere, so technically it > can't expect XSI (or POSIX) conformance. Um, so, if I #define _XOPEN_SOURCE, then the pthread library won't have a bug, but if I don't #define _XOPEN_SOURCE, then the pthread library will have a bug?
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is volatile so bad? Mark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-01 23:14 -0800
Re: Is volatile so bad? Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2012-01-02 15:49 +0100
Re: Is volatile so bad? "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2012-01-03 00:50 +0100
Re: Is volatile so bad? Mark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-05 20:52 -0800
Re: Is volatile so bad? "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2012-01-07 23:38 +0100
Re: Is volatile so bad? Mark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-08 14:14 -0800
Re: Is volatile so bad? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-06 11:30 +0000
Re: Is volatile so bad? Mark Adler <google@madler.net> - 2012-01-06 07:33 -0800
Re: Is volatile so bad? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-06 22:05 +0000
Re: Is volatile so bad? Mark Adler <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-06 19:13 -0800
Re: Is volatile so bad? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-01-07 08:51 +0000
csiph-web