From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 09:14:42 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <402395b7237060905dfe1a6d0ca443e1@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] _xinc vs ainc Topicbox-Message-UUID: e1018ee6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun May 8 02:01:57 EDT 2011, rminnich@gmail.com wrote: > The type signature reveals all: ainc returns a long, and xinc is void. > > You really can't test the value of the long * after you call xinc > because somebody else might have done an xinc after your xinc but > before you test the value. sorry ron, i don't see the motivation. the thread library does not use the return value. if it did then clearly it would have been wrong before. i would think that to change the code we would need a good reason. and i see no reason at all yet. - erik