2013/12/8 Philip Guenther <guent...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: >> One of the hallmarks of the original libpthread was that all data >> structures were opaque, and hidden via pointers. That in turn made it >> possible to write a binary compatible librthread. I never would have >> started librthread if it hadn't been for that compatibility. So I >> don't like turning my back on it. Exposing the size of sem_t is a >> *major* step. > > It may be time to actually make that jump. sem_t is actually an easy > one to do it with, as it doesn't have the ownership issues of mutexes > or spinlocks, or the lists of condvars or barriers. Those others will > require more structure changes and kernel help.
So what's the decision? Are there any objections still? If not, can I have a pair of okays? KDE4 really needs a decision to be made: people already had apps crashing without this diff, so I've put a dirty hack to stop KDE using of process-shared semaphores. But there could be more dragons, in other software. -- WBR, Vadim Zhukov
