apr-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From j..@apache.org
Subject cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Thu, 02 May 2002 13:45:34 GMT
jim         02/05/02 06:45:34

  Modified:    .        STATUS
  Log:
  Cast me vote on atomics... back from
  one traveling adventure to another (N+I next week)
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.119     +8 -1      apr/STATUS
  
  Index: STATUS
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/STATUS,v
  retrieving revision 1.118
  retrieving revision 1.119
  diff -u -r1.118 -r1.119
  --- STATUS	1 May 2002 23:42:33 -0000	1.118
  +++ STATUS	2 May 2002 13:45:34 -0000	1.119
  @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
   APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS:			-*-text-*-
  -Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/01 23:42:33 $]
  +Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/02 13:45:34 $]
   
   Release:
   
  @@ -81,6 +81,13 @@
                     in my opinion.  That said, I am not going to be the
                     one spending time on this, since asm on various
                     processors isn't really my game)
  +          Jim     (who thinks we'll need to reformat this vote) Any time
  +                  you make use of processor specific code for optimizations
  +                  or capability, you run into portability concerns. The
  +                  real option is to make atomics a compile-time option.
  +                  YES means you use the atomics code, based on the *build*
  +                  machine (and therefore carries some dependencies) or
  +                  NO which maintains "universal" portabiity.
         -1: IanH I don't agree. I think APR is the perfect place this kind of thing. 
                     For platforms that support it is a big win, for ones which don't
                     they are no worse off than the alternative.
  
  
  

Mime
View raw message