Re: pthread_setname_np API is bad

[Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>]

If we make Kamil's suggested ", ...) __printflike" change, then upstream will not have to #ifdef __NetBSD__
the calls.

christos

> On Aug 9, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:09:01PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> Delayed adoption of a standardized version of pthread_setname()
>> pthread_getname() will result in no API & ABI breakage with any existing
>> code as we will keep our own _np() invention, at least until we will
>> bump major number for libpthread. and drop redundant _np() variation
> 
> This is a good argument. And we may even opt to not drop the _np variant at
> all.
> 
> However, if we go for this - why change anything at all right now?
> 
> Keeping everything unchanged, pushing for a posix version, and then adopt
> that as soon as the signature is fixed sounds like a good plan to me.
> 
> If we touch it, we should do it cleanly.
> 
> Martin