+1 On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescoh...@cbsi.com> wrote:
> So it sounds like I should go ahead and work on an implementation of the time > caching using apr_atomic_cas32 and apr_atomic_dec32. This won't be an issue > for RHEL/CentOS/etc., because they're using old versions of httpd. We can > put something in the release notes saying that for 32-bit i486, i586, i686 > builds, you should build APR with --enable-nonportable-atomics, for distro > maintainers info when they package the new version. > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Adding APR dev list: > > IMO, httpd should expect APR to "do the right thing". If APR > isn't doing that, then it's an APR bug and needs to be fixed/ > addressed within APR. > > All this implies that the atomics code in APR needs a serious > review and update. > > We should also look into leveraging what we can from stdcxx > (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stdcxx/trunk/src) as well > as OPA (https://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/openpa/wiki/FAQ). > > Also, IMO, the default should be non-portable > atomics. > > On Dec 3, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Daniel Lescohier <daniel.lescoh...@cbsi.com> > wrote: > > > So I think we should reach a consensus on what approach to take. My goal > > was to implement an algorithm that is correct, with code that is easy to > > maintain. I think using the apr_atomics functions meets those goals the > > best. The downside are for those systems that are running 32-bit i486, > > i586, i686 systems where the default APR configure setting was not > > overridden for atomics. There may be i686 servers still out there using > > 32-bit web server, probably memory-constrained systems like VPS hosts; the > > question is have they overridden the APR default configuration or not. > > > > Should we hold back on fixing this because of these systems? If we go > > forward, should there be something in the release notes warning of this APR > > configuration issue? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Daniel Lescohier > > <daniel.lescoh...@cbsi.com> wrote: > > (continued, hit send too early) > > > > %ix86 i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode > > > > However, I looked at the CentOS 6 apr.spec, and it's not overriding the > > default. > > > > > >
