Garrett Rooney wrote:
Branko Äibej wrote:
Edward Rudd wrote:
The biggest reasons to use APR, is pool method of memory management,
As a matter of fact, pools can be a huge PITA, as we've found to our
detriment in Subversion.
The problem isn't that "pools are good" or "pools are bad", it's that
Branko Äibej wrote:
Edward Rudd wrote:
The biggest reasons to use APR, is pool method of memory management,
As a matter of fact, pools can be a huge PITA, as we've found to our
detriment in Subversion.
The problem isn't that "pools are good" or "pools are bad", it's that
they don't fit every p
Since somebody else said it first, I will admit that APR's reliance on
pools were my absolute biggest mistake in APR. I wrote an article for
Linux Magazine last month where I made it very clear that pools were
my biggest mistake.
My personal goal for APR 2.0 is to divorce APR from pools completel
Edward Rudd wrote:
The biggest reasons to use APR, is pool method of memory management,
As a matter of fact, pools can be a huge PITA, as we've found to our
detriment in Subversion.
-- Brane
I tried valgrind to profile my application using apr (apache portable
runtime) for Linux. I have problems with the wait for condition
(apr_cond_wait) : with valgrind, the application does not wait for a
signal. I build a similar test using pthread conditions, it works fine.
I join to this email
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-01-26 00:25:53 -0500 (Wed, 26 Jan 2005) $]
Releases:
Standalone
1.1.0 : released January 25, 2005
1.0.1 : released November 18, 2004
1.0.0 : released September 1, 2004
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2005-01-30 13:59:41 -0500 (Sun, 30 Jan 2005) $]
Release:
1.1.0 : released January 25, 2005
1.0.1 : released November 18, 2004
1.0.0 : released September 1, 2004
0.9.5
