>so, one of them always has to kill the other, it's just a matter of >whether the lock succeeds in time or not. obviously there's error >checking missing here, and signal catching. but mostly this is a >gigantic performance drainer and should not be done. that's why i >proposed a loop and LOCK_NB.
Fine with me; I bow to your experience here. >if "the MH way" could expand to C89 and posix threads, we'd have some >options that were both performance and correct. I think we already assume C89 as a minimum. However, I'm not sure I want to jump off the threads cliff just yet :-/ --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
