Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:14:10PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > @@ -124,7 +124,11 @@
> >
> > struct allocator_t {
> > apr_uint32_t max_index;
> > +#if APR_HAS_THREADS
> > apr_thread_mutex_t *mutex;
> > +#else
> > + void *mutex;
> > +#endif
> > apr_pool_t *owner;
> > node_t *free[MAX_INDEX];
> > };
>
> Do we even need to define mutex when threads aren't present? -- justin
if what you really mean to ask is "why do we still have the mutex field?"
answer: to minimize changes, along the lines of the LOCK()/UNLOCK()
macros somebody created.
I don't care either way. It looked to me like somebody had gone to
the trouble to avoid #if APR_HAS_THREADS all over the place and I
tried to continue with the same goal in mind.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
