Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65301 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2003 22:07:42 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2003 22:07:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3268 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 2003 22:07:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 3235 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 2003 22:07:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 3222 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2003 22:07:28 -0000 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:07:23 -0800 From: Aaron Bannert To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: apr_atomic stuff... planning to move all implementation out of the header file Message-ID: <20031116220723.GC13447@clove.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert , dev@apr.apache.org References: <3FB7D8A7.3000400@attglobal.net> <20031116201021.GB13447@clove.org> <3FB7DA61.2070705@attglobal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB7DA61.2070705@attglobal.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >+1 This is great, but will having to call a function negatively affect > >performance? > > Of course :) Pick your poison. Hmm...maybe we should compare performance of a functionized version of atomics vs. doing the same using pthread mutexes. -aaron