On Monday 03 September 2001 23:42, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:35:52PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:11:18PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > I'm chatting with Aaron to see what's up with this and if I can > > > reproduce his results. I'm scratching my head at this. > > > > (Just to keep the list in sync with what I've found...) > > > > In my tests, the performance is essentially identical (Aaron sent > > me the httpd component of the patch). > > > > However, --without-threads is busted with this patch. -- justin > > I will be fixing --without-threads tomorrow. Thanks for bringing this > to my attention. > > What is typically done for functions like these in APR, Should I: > > a) put #if APR_HAS_THREADS around the apr_thread_mutex_*() function, > prototypes; essentially causing all code that wishes to use these > functions to either fail at compile-time or have to put their own > conditionals in? > > or > b) have those functions that cannot function without APR_HAS_THREADS simply > return APR_ENOTIMPL? > > (i'm leaning for the (b) option, but that's just me)
Option a. If we are going to break, we should break at compile time. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
