Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:11:13 -0400 To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Reason for cover functions in pthread.cc Message-ID: <20000509171113.A7772@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <20000508115052 DOT K13670 AT cygnus DOT com> <000701bfb952$78bca8f0$6401a8c0 AT jupiter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.12i In-Reply-To: <000701bfb952$78bca8f0$6401a8c0@jupiter>; from pfisher@plexware.com on Mon, May 08, 2000 at 08:04:05PM -0500 On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 08:04:05PM -0500, Paul K. Fisher wrote: >> From: Chris Faylor, Monday, May 08, 2000 10:51 AM >> >> On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 10:43:31PM -0500, Paul K. Fisher wrote: >> >Is there a reason to keep the cover functions in pthread.cc? >> >> I don't know of any reason for this practice. It has >> always mystified me. Do things __pthread_attr_init >> exist in the spec? >No, not that I can see. These are simply gratuitous. I'll remove them in >my next patch. This is really mysterious. I wonder why someone would go to that level of effort. cgf