> > You can't do that either. In many cases, the _r functions are much less
> > efficient than the non_r functions. So, if you always use _r you lose
> > efficiency. Our wrappers would actually need to use _r or non_r based on
> > how it is compiled.
>
> I think you are confusing something now..
>
> An _r wrapper is only used, if the platform does not have the
> corresponding _r function.
>
> Thus, an _r wrapper always uses the non_r function.
>
> Do you mean that native _r functions are much less efficient?
On some platforms, the _r function is actually quite a bit less
efficient. I am looking right now to see how easy it would be for us to
implement a thread safe version of this stuff on a perplatform basis to
get around this problem. I am not motivated to do this, but oh well.
> I agree that fixing the platforms is the right midterm to
> longterm approach. It is a bogus problem which will
> hopefully go away soon. In the meantime, we should try to
> address the problem though. That is all a Portable Runtime is
> about.
I know, I'm just not in a great mood today. I may post something later to
solve this problem, or I may give up for the night.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

