apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guenter Knauf <fua...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r892141 - in /apr/apr/trunk/include: apr.hnw arch/netware/apr_private.h
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:09:12 GMT
William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> -#include <ndkvers.h>
>>> -#if (CURRENT_NDK_THRESHOLD < 709060000)
>>> -#define getpass_r getpassword
>>> -#endif
>> can you please explain too me why you think that NetWare doesnt need this
>> check / define any longer, and why you removed it?
> It's been far more than 1.5 years since this was added to the NDK; 2.0 will
> be released probably ~6 months from now, certainly not quickly.
> So the older getpassword isn't threadsafe, getpass_r is present, and as I
I really wonder from what you take this knowledge?
> understand it, only a handful of individuals actually compile (vs. use) the
> apr library on Netware.
Oh, so this then makes it valid to break it??
getpassword is identical to getpass_r and therefore 100% threadsafe; I
worked with the NetWare core developer to introduce getpass_r in
addition to getpassword in oder to have a standard API. Unfortunately it
turned out that newer NDKs have issues on multiprocessor AMD
installations which forces me to fall back to an older NDK which doesnt
have getpass_r.

> Supporting older architectures isn't a goal of apr 2.0, AIUI.  Using the
> modern toolchain seems like a prerequisite.
not in this case.

> What are your thoughts?  Would you like me to restore this legacy workaround?
> [Nothing in this refactoring is suggesting backport to 1.x].
yes, please.
In addition your other changes = moving header includes into apr.h
breaks compilation and requires to include apr.h before apr_private.h
within at least two source files, or to include apr.h in apr_private.h.
(I admit that I assume this from a mail I got privately with topic 'Does
Wrowe own APR?', I did not yet test it self).

Bill, even when we have CTR with APR its not ok when you touch
platform-specific files without testing, nor talking with the folks who
actually care about the affected platform -- nobody else does such, and
if its expected from me that I compile and test changes if I touch Linux
or Win32 files I think its only fair to expect same from you too.

thanks, Gün.

View raw message