Re: pthread_getname_np implementation

Re: pthread_getname_np implementation

[Poggiali, Antonio]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:18:38 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> So the situation is nasty, but not as bad as I remember. The
> conflicting definitions are basically junk (unusable) or minor
> gratuitous differences (int vs size_t). However this does suggest that
> there's a decent motivation for discouraging the proliferation of its
> use in applications.

> Thoughts?

I think if you provide a way to set a name,  there should be a way to get it as well.
The majority of the systems lacks the API or have it as glibc does so why not implement it glibc style?

Antonio






CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies of the original message, including any and all attachments, and notify the sender immediately.

Re: Re: pthread_getname_np implementation

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:31:56AM +0000, Poggiali, Antonio wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:18:38 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > So the situation is nasty, but not as bad as I remember. The
> > conflicting definitions are basically junk (unusable) or minor
> > gratuitous differences (int vs size_t). However this does suggest that
> > there's a decent motivation for discouraging the proliferation of its
> > use in applications.
> 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I think if you provide a way to set a name,  there should be a way to get it as well.
> The majority of the systems lacks the API or have it as glibc does so why not implement it glibc style?

Based on the previous discussion of this and others' comments, I think
adding it is probably the right thing to do. I'll look at it after
rolling the release. Ping the list again if I don't get around to it
soon.

Rich