[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-1420?page=all ]
David Bertoni updated XERCESC-1420:
---
Attachment: XMLHolder.hpp
> XMLPlatformUtils::makeMutex() creates mutex objects using the C++ runtime
> heap instead of using a MemoryManager instance
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-1420?page=all ]
David Bertoni updated XERCESC-1420:
---
Attachment: patch.txt
This is a new patch, replacing the class XMLMutexHolder with a class that is
more generic.
> XMLPlatformUtils::makeMutex() creat
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESC-1420?page=all ]
David Bertoni updated XERCESC-1420:
---
Attachment: XMLHolder.c
> XMLPlatformUtils::makeMutex() creates mutex objects using the C++ runtime
> heap instead of using a MemoryManager instance
>
> looking at IconvLCPTranscoder: the actual conversion is done by the
> stdlib functions mbstowcs and wcstombs. Both functions expect a buffer
> that can hold the whole result string. Citing the man page:
>
>size_t wcstombs(char *dest, const wchar_t *src, size_t n);
Is there any reason
James Berry wrote:
> Yeah, I'd really like it if calcRequiredSize could just go away. It
> might be possible to excise it from the Xerces code without too much
> trouble. I'm not sure how much it gets used in client code. We might
> be safe in simply doing away with it for Xerces 3.0.
>
> > Wouldn'
On May 28, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Axel Weiß wrote:
Am Samstag, 28. Mai 2005 19:03 schrieb James Berry:
Actually, there is a switch to libtool (--quiet) that does do this.
Oops, where did you find it?
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Invoking-libtool
doesn't
tell anything abou
Am Samstag, 28. Mai 2005 19:03 schrieb James Berry:
> Actually, there is a switch to libtool (--quiet) that does do this.
Oops, where did you find it?
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Invoking-libtool doesn't
tell anything about it.
> Thank you very much for your patch. I wasn't
Hi Axel,
On May 28, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Axel Weiß wrote:
James Berry wrote:
o would you like me to make the output of make look pretty? I can
do it
in a way that verbose make output is still an option.
How do you do this? Though automake somehow? Since the Makefile
itself is autogenerated, we ce
James Berry wrote:
> > o would you like me to make the output of make look pretty? I can
> > do it
> > in a way that verbose make output is still an option.
>
> How do you do this? Though automake somehow? Since the Makefile
> itself is autogenerated, we certainly don't want to edit that ;) But
Gareth Reakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey,
>
> Wrote a short one
>
> http://blog.parthenoncomputing.com/xerces/archives/2005/05/memory_manageme.html
>
> Please give comments. This comes up now and again so its worth
> spending a bit of time on to make it understandable.
Hey Gareth,
I
10 matches
Mail list logo