From: "Mattias Lindblad" <ml_news@matli.net>
Subject: Re: POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory
Date: 22 Sep 2004 09:18:14 -0700
Date: 2004-09-22T09:18:14-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1095869894.188174.69560@k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrncl34dr.mke.Colin_Paul_Gloster@vasa.acc.umu.se
I'm afraid that protected objects are not a possible solution in the
situation at hand. However, I have two different workarounds for the
issue. One is a simple patch to the Florist lib (which of course would
not be very portable given that Florist follows the standard), the
other is to ignore the functions in POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory and do
the relevant function calls manually.
A third solution would of course be to create wrappers for the
corresponding C functions, but I'm trying to avoid such things.
But while I can solve the problem, I'm still interested in hearing if I
should blame the standards committee, the Florist programmers or myself
:)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-22 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-20 17:23 POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory Mattias Lindblad
2004-09-22 14:52 ` POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory Paul Colin Gloster
2004-09-22 16:18 ` Mattias Lindblad [this message]
2004-09-27 20:46 ` POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory Mark Lorenzen
2004-09-27 21:51 ` POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory Ludovic Brenta
2004-09-29 12:09 ` POSIX_Generic_Shared_Memory Mattias Lindblad
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox