Re: [Fwd: Bug#63511 acknowledged by developer(Bug#63511: fixed in glibc 2.2-7)]
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:12:44AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
>
> Anyway, here is the _explanation_ for the bug report.
>
> There's a preprocessor symbol in posix threads. It's called
> PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_INITIALIZER_NP. I claim that it has not been
> defined although it is said to be defined in the docs. Which
> docs? Obviously, the info manual since there is only *one*
> freakin' manual. Where in that manual? Any luser with a
> info browser that can search would find it:
Sorry, but there are many docs with which to talk about system
headers/libs. Let's start with the info docs, then go to the manpages
(yes, pthread manpages are in the glibc-doc package too), then not to
mention general POSIX threading documentation, SUSv2 and other things
like the XPG, XOPEN, UNIX 98, and other specs.
When you start saying "docs", you need to be more specific.
> From
> File: libc.info, Node: Mutexes, Next: Condition Variables, Prev: Cleanup Handlers, Up: POSIX Threads
>
> <<<<
>
> Variables of type `pthread_mutex_t' can also be initialized
> statically, using the constants `PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER' (for
> timed mutexes), `PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP' (for
> recursive mutexes), `PTHREAD_ADAPTIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP' (for
> fast mutexes(, and `PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP' (for
> error checking mutexes).
> <<<<<
WOW. Go fucking figure. YOUR BUG REPORT says
PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_INITIALIZER_NP
while this info page shows
PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP
See the difference? See why I couldn't find it?! See why I thought you
were just having a bad day, and misreading things!?! The latter IS
defined in the headers.
WHAT TO DO:
- Get a clue
- Read better
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: