On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:17 AM Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: > > On 06.08.2019 07:19, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:06 PM Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:29:27PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > >>> > >>> So great, you made your API incompatible with everyone else for zero > >>> gain. /o\ > >> > >> And so forth. > >> > >> Is there some reason for the snotty attitude? Whether you're right or > >> wrong you're not likely to persuade anyone that way. > > > > Well, yes, actually. It's a waste of my time to deal with useless API > > incompatibilities. > > > > Feel free to disregard my whole email based on the perceived attitude, > > if you're unhappy with it. > > > > I was just trying to do the right thing, and I don't intend to expend > > any more effort advocating for this change. It doesn't matter to me > > whether you take the suggestion or even whether Mesa works on NetBSD, > > but it might matter to you. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > I propose to change the function signatures on the next ABI bump to: > > int pthread_setname_np(pthread_t, const char * restrict format, ...) > __printflike(2, 3); > > int pthread_attr_setname_np(pthread_attr_t *, const char * restrict > format, ...*) __printflike(2, 3); > > This way we will keep API compat for all the current users and keep > compiler checks for safe usage. > > Personally, I find it convenient to use it like pthread_setname_np(t[i], > "thread %d, i) and I would like to keep using it.
FWIW, I think that's a better suggestion than either of mine. I support that.
