Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <414F5E77.3050408@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:49:27 -0400
From: Allan Edwards <ake1@us.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: cvs commit: apr/atomic/win32 apr_atomic.c]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

meant to reply to dev@apr also
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/atomic/win32 apr_atomic.c
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:42:24 -0400
From: Allan Edwards <ake1@us.ibm.com>
To: Cliff Woolley <jwoolley@virginia.edu>
References: <20040920192013.71968.qmail@minotaur.apache.org> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0409201543200.4649@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>

> Doesn't this just mean that the definition of apr_atomic_win32_ptr_val_fn
> is wrong on win64?  Wouldn't it be cleaner to redefine that on win64
> instead of these two #if #else cases?

The problem is with the use of a typedef to remap the function.
It makes the compiler think there is an external function
called InterlockedExchangeAdd when it really is an
intrinsic function. So redefining for win64 does not
work (in fact no remapping would be needed for win64 since
it matches the typedef).

Allan