[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> jim 02/04/04 10:33:57
>
> Modified:.CHANGES configure.in
>include apr.h.in apr_global_mutex.h apr_lock.h
> apr_proc_mutex.h
>include/arch/unix locks.h proc_mutex.h
>locks/uni
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:39:41PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> "sem_open("/ApR.whatever", O_CREAT, 0644,1)" returns ENOSYS on Linux
> (2.2.12 kernel). I'll try to add an autoconf check for that.
>
> Beyond the issue mentioned above, why is a new lock mechanism
> suddenly so high in the priority
Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:39:41PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > "sem_open("/ApR.whatever", O_CREAT, 0644,1)" returns ENOSYS on Linux
> > (2.2.12 kernel). I'll try to add an autoconf check for that.
> >
> > Beyond the issue mentioned above, why is a n
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> "sem_open("/ApR.whatever", O_CREAT, 0644,1)" returns ENOSYS on Linux
> (2.2.12 kernel). I'll try to add an autoconf check for that.
Yeah... right now almost all the APR checks are just for existance
and not implementation... we should really fix that for those
that we exp
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:04:46PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> You should hard-code posix semaphores for Darwin in apr_hints.m4. We
> should not be playing around with the lock choice and affecting
> multiple systems when we get specific platform knowledge we want to
> exploit. apr_hints.m4 is f
"Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:04:46PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> You should hard-code posix semaphores for Darwin in apr_hints.m4. We
>> should not be playing around with the lock choice and affecting
>> multiple systems when we get specific platform k
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > "sem_open("/ApR.whatever", O_CREAT, 0644,1)" returns ENOSYS on Linux
> > (2.2.12 kernel). I'll try to add an autoconf check for that.
>
> Yeah... right now almost all the APR checks are just for existance
> and not implemen
Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:04:46PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > You should hard-code posix semaphores for Darwin in apr_hints.m4. We
> > should not be playing around with the lock choice and affecting
> > multiple systems when we get specific platform
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, we don't know how these things work in practice. What if (wild
> hypothesis) Solaris has it but the default kernel config allows only a
> handful of them? Then we start getting PRs from a bunch of the people
> who did --disable-threads on Solaris
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> There is a big difference between "can be used" and "should be used."
> flock() "can be used" on a bunch of systems but nobody went to the
> trouble to add the right AC_CHECK_LIB() function to pick up BSD
> compatibility stuff because nobody wants to use it on those systems
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Also, we don't know how these things work in practice. What if (wild
> hypothesis) Solaris has it but the default kernel config allows only a
> handful of them? Then we start getting PRs from a bunch of the people
> who did --disable-threads on Solaris (and therefore aren
11 matches
Mail list logo
