On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > malc, > > is there anything that can be done in our apr/test/ tree to validate > the correct behavior, and tickle these bugs? This would obviously > help validate the patches you propose, and possibly pick up such > bugs in other condition variable implementations. >
No, but i would guess taking some tests from GLIBC and/or Win32 Pthreads would do, as APIs are quite similar. As for patches, current condition variable code is broken beyond repair, the whole aproach can't possibly work. There is at least one algorithm that does work and thats the one in Win32 Pthreads. I do not have enough expertise in this field to contribute any patches tests, i'm not even a Win32 coder. > The emphasis for 1.0.0 is API-complete. It won't mean zarro boogs. > It will mean that as folks develop for APR 1.0 - the api won't shift > beneath their feet from subversion to subversion, and it will remain > backwards compatible from minor to minor version. In fact, for users > who build APR-based apps, things will only get better (till 2.0 really > improves things by a leap - but also will require the developers to > make adjustments for the API - all at once.) I wouldn't take my own word on it, but to me it looks like API is OK. > I hope to find cycles this week to review the patches (don't let that > stop anyone else of course.) A test case would obviously help, alot. -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
