[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#402318: libc6-dev: /usr/include/semaphore.h can't be used without pthread.h



Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.6.ds1-9
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

 There is an issue with the /usr/include/semaphore.h file and what
 the manpages are saying for sem_open(3) and POSIX specifications
 for the semaphore.h file.

 In a nutshell, with the libc6-dev package, one can't do
 the (basic) following :

 #include <semaphore.h>

 Without having included pthread.h before. That breaks a few
 .c files that would have compiled without any error on other POSIX
 systems with the following message :

 In file included from test.c:10:
 /usr/include/semaphore.h:34: error: field '__sem_lock' has incomplete 
type

 (where line 10 of test.c is "#include <semaphore.h>").

 Maybe should we inlcude pthread.h in /usr/include/semaphore.h ?

 Another solution would be to fix the manpages (ie: sem_open(3))
 who are just requiring semaphore.h by adding an #include <pthread.>
 line.

 For the record, users who find this bug while trying
 to compile POSIX-semaphore enabled source code can fix
 it by adding "#include <pthread.h>" before "#include <semaphore.h>"

Thanks,

Florian Le Goff <florian.le-goff@poxx.net>

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-3-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii  libc6                        2.3.6.ds1-9 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  linux-kernel-headers         2.6.18-6    Linux Kernel Headers for developme

Versions of packages libc6-dev recommends:
ii  gcc [c-compiler]              4:4.1.1-13 The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-3.3 [c-compiler]          1:3.3.6-13 The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.0 [c-compiler]          4.0.3-7    The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.1 [c-compiler]          4.1.1-20   The GNU C compiler

-- no debconf information



Reply to: