apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Breaking something? Now is the time?
Date Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:32:29 GMT
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:22:01PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> I think SMS's use of a wrapper function to do the indirect method
> call was the main problem, which is why we'd have to use a macro
> instead if we reintroduced a function pointer model.

Count me confused, but what is the difference between:

p->alloc

and

#define apr_palloc(...) p->alloc

Aren't they going to resolve to the same thing?  Or are you referring
to the fact that we used to have a function like this:

apr_palloc()
{
 return p->alloc();
}

IIRC, I did macroize it during my test runs (at one point at least -
I may not have committed it) and found no performance improvement.
The problems seemed to be with the function pointer itself.  It's all
a little fuzzy though, so it's possible I didn't macroize.  

A better solution, IMHO, would be just to code a drop-in replacement
for memory/unix/apr_pools.c.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message