apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Moore-Oliva <j...@chatgris.com>
Subject Re: Bug Report -- sorry if duplicate my first attempt at sending my email was not working.
Date Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:35:41 GMT
Yep, thanks and I should have clarified in my response that I wasn't sure 
whether it was for earlier reasons or just a we've already set a spec.


On July 10, 2003 06:26 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Joshua Moore-Oliva wrote:
> > Regardless of it's usefulness, it is something that people can do.  I do
> > not see any performance penalty by running the cleanups before clearing
> > the subpools, and it eliminates a possible segmentation fault.
> Actually it would cause a lot more segfaults if you changed it.  The
> reason I asked you to just take my word for it before is that these
> cleanup problems are horrendously complicated and intertwined and hard to
> explain, not because I was trying to say "we've already decided it and you
> have no input."
> Here's one example: Let's say you have an object a in pool p and a
> childpool q that has an object b (which refers to object a) in it.  If you
> destroy a before you cleanup pool q, then the cleanup for b will run after
> things it depends on from object a are already destroyed.
> So the pool cleanup order is always LIFO... we always guarantee that when
> q's cleanups run, everything in p still exists.  If that were not the
> case, then it would be very difficult to cleanup things in q.
> Does that help clarify?
> --Cliff

View raw message