3 ms·

setenv and getenv have never been thread safe, why the concern with it now?

• kibwen 2y ago
  The concern now is that, unlike when Posix was set in stone, threads exist.
  • loeg 2y ago
    The p in pthreads stands for Posix. I.e., uh, Posix is neither set in stone, nor entirely predates threads.
    • kibwen 2y ago
      And when can we expect the version of Posix that fixes setenv to be MT-safe?
      • loeg 2y ago
        You've shifted the goalposts from the comment I responded to.
        • kibwen 2y ago
          Not at all, because if Posix wasn't set in stone, then surely it would take somewhat less than three-ish decades to fix this problem.
    • pjmlp 2y ago
      I am old enough to remeber when UNIX only had processes, and several thread designs were being discussed until eventually pthreads one design won. POSIX predates adoption of threads in the UNIX world.
      • loeg 2y ago
        Yes, yes, but also post-dates adoption of threads. It's an ongoing standard.
        • pjmlp 2y ago
          Which only standardises existing practice, not inventing new ideas. So first everyone implementing POSIX has to agree to move forward with thread safety where it fails short.