On 6/3/2015 1:02 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
In your opinion, is this worth filing a bug report over?
That would probably help to remember that there is a request for it ;)
Done:
Yann,
On 6/2/2015 3:19 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
A workaround today is (as you did) to use the child_init hook
registered with APR_HOOK_REALLY_LAST, so that it is called after all
the others.
Great, that should help mitigate the risk for now; thank you! (Thanks to
Nick as well for his similar
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
In your opinion, is this worth filing a bug report over?
That would probably help to remember that there is a request for it ;)
Regards,
Yann.
On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:15:18 -0500
Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
We could just call apr_setup_signal_thread() ourselves -- and doing that
does fix the problem -- but that means that modules which are
initialized after us will get the global protection too, which doesn't
feel
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Jacob Champion jacob.champ...@ni.com wrote:
We could just call apr_setup_signal_thread() ourselves -- and doing that
does fix the problem -- but that means that modules which are
initialized after us will get the global protection too, which doesn't
