Pthreads Programming
by Bradford Nichols, Dick Buttlar, & Jacqueline Proulx Farrell


This errata page lists errors outstanding in the most recent printing.  


If you have any technical questions or error reports, you can send them to 
booktech@oreilly.com.  (Please specify the printing date of your copy.)



This page was last updated on July 31. 2008.

Here's a key to the markup:

	[page-number]: serious technical mistake
	{page-number}: minor technical mistake
	<page-number>: important language/formatting problem
	(page-number): language change or minor formatting problem
	?page-number?: reader question or request for clarification


Confirmed errors:

(iv) Printing History near top of page;
The printing history has not been updated. My copy contains corrections for all the errata reported to have been made for the 1/00 reprint, but the last entry under Printing History is "February 1998: Minor corrections".


(15) line 3;
    "and using the (void *) cast to quit the compiler."
should be:
     "and using the (void *) cast to quiet the compiler."


{23}  Example 1-8;
At the top of the code example, internal_error is declared but not used.
static const int internal_error = -12;
should be:
static const int real_bad_error = -12;


(38)  4th paragraph;
Instead of "for a such a", it should be "for such a"

[80] There is a bug with respect to condition variables. There is a
race condition. If you don't make sure that the watch_count() routine
has started waiting for the condition to be set before you signal the
condition, the condition may be signaled before the watch_count()
function starts waiting. That is, suppose the inc_count()) threads run
and signal the condition *before* the first "9781565921153_mutex_lock(&count
_mutex)" call in watch_count() is even executed. The condition will be
ignored. While this is unlikely, it is possible. You can solve this
problem by having the main thread not even spawn the inc_count()
threads until it receives notice that watch_count() has executed
"9781565921153_mutex_lock(&count_mutex)" already.



[105]  Example 3-26;
When freeing the pool structures, the while loops reads:

while(tpool->queue_head != NULL) {
    cur_nodep = tpool->queue_head->next;
    tpool->queue_head = tpool->queue_head->next;
    free(cur_nodep);
  }

This is freeing the incorrect structure. Instead, it should be:

while(tpool->queue_head != NULL) {
    cur_nodep = tpool->queue_head; /* HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE */
    tpool->queue_head = tpool->queue_head->next;
    free(cur_nodep);
  }