On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:36:26PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> will always fail since node->endp[index] should be zero. Hence it should not
> find a pool. Or am I off now?
I think we get very little ordering constraints without memory
synchronisation, regardless of the order of the C
On 9/2/20 10:47 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:11:39AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/2/20 9:10 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:11:59PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Your point is that there is no case where multiple threads work on the
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:57:41PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> I'll try to fix some of them but it is unlikely that I can fix all of them.
> Fixing them would require is many cases to add some casting. I'm not a big
> fan of having casting everywhere only to please a given compiler, when
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:11:39AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 9/2/20 9:10 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:11:59PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >> Your point is that there is no case where multiple threads work on the
> >> same apr_memcache_conn_t at the same
Trunk revision 1881390
02 sept 2020 404
01 sept 2020 405
On Tuesday 01/09/2020 at 16:30, Steffen Land wrote:
Trunk revision 1881351 date 1 sept 2020
New layout list, more readable now.
01 sept 2020 405 some solved already by jailletc36
14 May 2020 416
Steffen
Warning C4244
On 9/2/20 9:10 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:11:59PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Your point is that there is no case where multiple threads work on the same
>> apr_memcache_conn_t at the same time, correct?
>> If yes, I agree that this is the case and that I missed this
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:11:59PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Your point is that there is no case where multiple threads work on the same
> apr_memcache_conn_t at the same time, correct?
> If yes, I agree that this is the case and that I missed this and hence my
> point is mood.
I think
