[fpc-devel] syncobjs unit

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Mon Nov 27 14:54:53 CET 2006

> On 27 nov 2006, at 13:56, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> >> Another solution is to use one "big-enough" type. But one day big- 
> >> enough
> >> isn't going to be big enough and it still has problem #2.
> >
> > It can be increased, but 128 bit is at least (128-64) bit/0.5 bit/ 
> > year away :)
> I really think this does not matter in any way. Afaik the routines  
> which are affected all only return error codes, not values. So what  
> is really needed is a set of FPC-defined error codes, and  
> translations from the OS-specific error codes to these FPC error codes.
> Whether these FPC error codes are signed or not doesn't matter, and  
> by the time people need more than 2**32 individual error code  
> conditions regarding why a mutex (un)lock failed they'll need  
> automatic ways to deal with that anyway.

I also think this is the right way. If you specify OS specific return codes
per threadmanager, this will lead to unnecssary breakage.

More information about the fpc-devel mailing list