Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> However, pthread_t is intended to be an opaque (implementation defined)
> type. For example, an implementation may choose to use a structure to
> implement the type. Therefore, assigning zero (or any other constant)
> to a pthread_t is not supported in general.
> ...
> Note that, for the same reason given above, you can not, in general,
> directly compare pthread_t handles with the built-in equality operator.
> In order to compare pthread_t's for equality, the POSIX standard requires
> the use of pthread_equal().
Thanks, the above analysis all sound sensible.
I do not think it matters in *this* case, but if a loop iterates
over an array of things with a field of type pthread_t in it, whose
element may or may not be valid, and wants to mark the validity of
an element with the value of its pthread_t field, what is the proper
way to do so? I.e.
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(thread_data); i++) {
if (pthread_invalid(thread_data[i].thread)
continue; /* not used */
if (!pthread_equal(self, thread_data[i].thread))
continue; /* not me */
/* ah, this is mine! */
...
}
Perhaps the answer is "Don't do it" and that is perfectly fine, but
does Nguyen's code rely on the final clean-up (assignment with 0 you
are removing with this patch) to mark that these elements are no
longer relevant?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html