On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > j...@apache.org wrote:
> > > + i = apr_atomic_dec32(&foo);
> > > + if (i >= 0) {
> >
> > Why can we expect i < 0? apr_atomic_dec32 returns 0 if the dec causes
> foo to become zero and it returns non zero
> > otherwise. Shouldn't this behavior the same across all platforms? And if
> not should that be fixed in APR?
> >
> > icc (Intel) builds of httpd 2.4.7 event MPM (with apr-1.5.0) bomb here.
> >
> > --enable-nonportable-atomics is specified for apr, though I haven't
> checked what that does with icc.
> >
>
> As noted back with the orig update, this test is due to the
> fdqueue code in the new event:
>
> apr_status_t ap_queue_info_set_idle(fd_queue_info_t * queue_info,
> apr_pool_t * pool_to_recycle)
> {
> apr_status_t rv;
> int prev_idlers;
>
> ap_push_pool(queue_info, pool_to_recycle);
>
> /* Atomically increment the count of idle workers */
> /*
> * TODO: The atomics expect unsigned whereas we're using signed.
> * Need to double check that they work as expected or else
> * rework how we determine blocked.
> * UPDATE: Correct operation is performed during open_logs()
> */
> prev_idlers = apr_atomic_inc32((apr_uint32_t *)&(queue_info->idlers));
>
> /* If other threads are waiting on a worker, wake one up */
> if (prev_idlers < 0) {
>
>
> See the comments ("The atomics expect unsigned whereas...") for
> the reason, etc.
>
> When you say "icc (Intel) builds of httpd 2.4.7 event MPM (with apr-1.5.0)
> bomb here."
> do you mean that you get the 'atomics not working as expected' error
> (and the internal server error) or that it core dumps?
>
>
"atomics not working as expected"
Let me see what code is used...
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
