On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Steven Dake wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 15:10 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Steven Dake wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 13:55 +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Steven Dake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> We can make it optional and use pthread_mutex in its place if the >>>>> spin >>>>> lock operations aren't present. >>>>> >>>>> The only reason it is used now is because it is about 4x faster >>>>> then >>>>> mutexes in the use cases of the logsys. >>>> >>>> Understandable >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't aware of the portability problems. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a method to test if spin_lock is unavailable on these >>>>> platforms? I don't have any of those platforms available to test >>>>> on. >>>> >>>> I only know how to do it within the context of autoconf: >>>> AC_CHECK_FUNCS(some_function_name) >>>> >>>> Which creates a #define (set to 1 if present) formed by prefixing >>>> HAVE_ to the function name (all uppercase). >>>> >>>> I guess its possible to do other ways, but you'd want to make the >>>> result persistent (retesting for every build would seem sub- >>>> optimal). >>>> >>>> Wasn't autoconf being considered at one point? >>>> >>> >>> I think there is a problem now of nobody to do the work, >> >> oh i'm happy to do the work if there is a hope of it being >> accepted :-) > > My only real concern with autoconf is I don't understand any part of > it > at all. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to learn to maintain it > though if someone does the work. I don't want to block all new work > because I don't understand how to do simple things like add source > files > to a build, or select which c files go into which object, etc. > > > couple questions > > how long would it take to have a prelim patch?
"a day or so" of actual work > Would the libraries still be shared objects or some wacky libtool > thing. entirely up to you, but autoconf can be used independently of libtool and even automake at least to start with, i'd propose leaving the makefiles alone and just use autoconf to add a configure step to the build process. once that works and everyone is comfortable with it, only then think about converting the makefiles to use automake (still not using libtool). > > I'll be honest I don't understand libtool and I prefer .so's to be > installed in the system so anyone can link with them easily. > > Would portability with the current arches be maintained? if you mean "is autoconf available on the current arches?", then yes > and most importantly would you be able to teach me how to change > things > with it? of course :-) _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
