Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:51:26 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add apr_proc_mutex for the new Lock API
Message-ID: <20010914155126.O29160@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>, dev@apr.apache.org
References: <20010914151547.R11014@clove.org>
 <20010914152335.S11014@clove.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20010914152335.S11014@clove.org>;
 from aaron@clove.org on Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:23:35PM -0700

On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:23:35PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> One note, more of a question to the other APR developers...see my inline
> comment:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:15:47PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> [snip] 
> > #if !APR_HAVE_UNION_SEMUN && defined(APR_HAS_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZE)
> > /* it makes no sense, but this isn't defined on solaris */
> > union semun {
> >     long val;
> >     struct semid_ds *buf;
> >     ushort *array;
> > };
> > #endif
> [snip] 
> 
> Since this is now defined in include/arch/unix/proc_mutex.h AND
> include/arch/unix/lock.h, if both are #included into a file there
> will be redifition errors/warnings. Should we invent a symbol to
> protect this section from double-inclusion?

No. It should just be defined in one spot (say lock.h), and proc_mutex.h
would then include lock.h.

Why would we even think of duplicating the definition, and then patching
around that?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/