Am 08.10.2010 23:47, schrieb Rainer Jung:
OK, done so far. First build tests on Solaris look good. I can even do
an out of tree build.
Building the tests might be broken for Windows and Netware, although I'm
not aware of any obvious problem.
no, all build fine for NetWare, great!
All I needed
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 08.10.2010 17:45, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Jung
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04.10.2010 13:00, Jeff Trawick wrote:
(Both have critical fixes which are currently available only as
patches.)
On 08.10.2010 17:45, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 04.10.2010 13:00, Jeff Trawick wrote:
(Both have critical fixes which are currently available only as patches.)
I can T&R as long as the trees are ready by approx. Thursday (I'm on
the road next we
On 10/8/2010 1:53 PM, rj...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Fri Oct 8 18:53:30 2010
> New Revision: 1005955
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1005955&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix expat version in Windows build file.
>
> Modified:
> apr/apr-util/branches/1.5.x/xml/expat/lib/expat.d
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Ruppert [mailto:s...@myarm.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 8 oktober 2010 17:55
> To: dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: apr_file_*() threading issues under Windows!
>
> I do not use a file handle from different threads. But if this is not a
> valid usage scenario w
I do not use a file handle from different threads. But if this is not a
valid usage scenario why protected some piece of code with a mutex??
Also a couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about performance
where these mutex operation are involved. Thus if the apr_file_*()
functions are desi
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 04.10.2010 13:00, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> (Both have critical fixes which are currently available only as patches.)
>>
>> I can T&R as long as the trees are ready by approx. Thursday (I'm on
>> the road next week). It would be great to get
Are you trying to use the same apr_file_t handle simultaneously in
different threads? AFAIK it was never meant to work that way.
On 08.10.2010 14:34, Stefan Ruppert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after digging into the apr_file_*() source code for Windows I have
> found several issues regading file io and
On 04.10.2010 13:00, Jeff Trawick wrote:
(Both have critical fixes which are currently available only as patches.)
I can T&R as long as the trees are ready by approx. Thursday (I'm on
the road next week). It would be great to get expat taken care of but
I can't volunteer any time on that.
If
Hi all,
after digging into the apr_file_*() source code for Windows I have found
several issues regading file io and threading under Windows.
In general is there a document which explains which functions are
thread-safe and which not?
* Allocation of pOverlapped structure is not thread-safe
Hi all,
I have filed a bug in bugzilla for this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058
and added a patch which simple removes the calls to apr_file_lock() and
apr_file_unlock()!
Please can some test this!?
Also I have found some more issues with apr_file_*() functio
11 matches
Mail list logo
