output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 07:57 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 15:17 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 18:51 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (18 Jun 2005 21:06 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (19 Jun 2005 09:09 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (19 Jun 2005 09:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (20 Jun 2005 09:16 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (21 Jun 2005 07:43 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (21 Jun 2005 08:08 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (27 Jun 2005 05:45 UTC)

Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber 20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC

Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> writes:

> Is there a portable way (i.e. can be written in portable C)
> to avoid calling synchronization primitives (e.g. pthread_mutex_lock)
> if the implementation uses native threads?

But if you're using native threads, aren't read(2) and write(2)
already thread-safe in some sense?  (I really don't know.)

That's where most of the potentially expensive synchronization is,
anyway.  There's a little bit in the streams layer, but I'm not sure
avoiding that would be worth the potential pain.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla