apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <jwool...@virginia.edu>
Subject Re: Bug Report -- sorry if duplicate my first attempt at sending my email was not working.
Date Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:26:51 GMT
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?


View raw message