apr-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Thu, 02 May 2002 14:02:42 GMT
rbb         02/05/02 07:02:42

  Modified:    .        STATUS
  Log:
  Small reformatting to make the votes easier to see (hopefully).  Also
  I agree 100% with Jim, I was going to type it later today, Jim made it so
  I didn't have to.  :-)
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.121     +5 -4      apr/STATUS
  
  Index: STATUS
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/STATUS,v
  retrieving revision 1.120
  retrieving revision 1.121
  diff -u -r1.120 -r1.121
  --- STATUS	2 May 2002 13:50:38 -0000	1.120
  +++ STATUS	2 May 2002 14:02:42 -0000	1.121
  @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
   APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS:			-*-text-*-
  -Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/02 13:50:38 $]
  +Last modified at [$Date: 2002/05/02 14:02:42 $]
   
   Release:
   
  @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@
                     although I have spent more time on this than I'd like.
                     If someone wants to maintain it, more power to them.  If
                     no one maintains it, this gets changed to a +1.),
  -          BrianP (All the reasons why we don't want the processor-specific
  +          BrianP,cliff:
  +	  	  (All the reasons why we don't want the processor-specific
                     code in APR are also reasons why I don't want to push
                     that code up into the apps that use APR.  I'd rather
                     spend some more time searching for a workable solution
  @@ -76,12 +77,12 @@
                     apps using the atomic API set a preprocessor flag to
                     choose an "optimal" or "portable" version of the atomic
                     ops?)
  -          Cliff  (Agrees with BrianP)
             Sander (The positive sides of the atomics outweigh the negative
                     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
  +          Jim,rbb:
  +	  	  (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.
  
  
  

Mime
View raw message