httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manoj Kasichainula <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/time/unix time.c
Date Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:31:51 GMT
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 05:46:32PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> That's fine.  The idea is still valid, and is still the correct one.

You mean the idea of the macros used to provide the locking instead of
doing it directly? Sure.

But, there is one other problem I just noticed, which is that the lock
is created in the memory context of the first ap_time_t that uses
SAFETY_LOCK. If that context is destroyed, the lock goes away. The
lock has to be in a persistant location (NULL context?).

And why are we using a cross-process lock?

> > Also, can we assume that if there are nonstandard _r functions (i.e.
> > _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS is not defined) that they will behave the
> > same as pthreads/SUS dictate? If not, then we should check for
> > _POSIX_THREAD_SAFE_FUNCTIONS instead of letting autoconf check for
> > each _r function individually.
> I don't see this as an issue.  If a system has a function that is defined
> by a standard, and the function doesn't work according to the standard,
> the platform is broken.  Do you know of any such system?  Or, is this
> hand-waving over the issue?

Ralf brought this up as a concern. It appears that there are two
different defines that indicate the existence of the _r functions.  If
the _r functions exist on a system with the old define
(_POSIX_REENTRANT_FUNCTIONS) but not the new one, then they may be
from an old spec with different definitions. I don't know (and web
searches have come up with nothing), which is why I'm asking.

Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com -
"Tandems are good if you need hardware which sucks reliably, 24x365."
  -- Malcolm Ray.

View raw message