On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 02:32:48PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > Would it be prudent for APR to provide a shared-memory implementation of > posix mutexes? It seems to me that we don't have to rely on PROCESS_SHARED > being available on a particular platform if we handle our own shared > memory allocation. Are there any known caveats to this type of an > implementation?
Er, I'm smoking crack here or something. Of course we're already doing it this way, I just didn't notice before. *smack* Are there any differences between that and using a SysV shmem implementation? I'm a relative newbie when it comes to how portable subsystems like this are. -aaron
