Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 67854 invoked by uid 500); 29 Feb 2000 00:08:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 67843 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 00:08:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:11:31 -0800 (PST) From: Greg Stein To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: 2.0 on UNIX gets SIGSEGV if no SysV semaphores avail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 rbb@apache.org wrote: >... > > . Can the caller of semget() log an error message? > > > > Almost no apr code writes to the apache log; the stuff that > > does is kind of ugly (inside ifdef APACHE). > > > > APR is not tied to Apache, and therefore does not know about the Apache > log. There is one place that this rule is broken, inside of ap_palloc and > it's helper functions, because traditionally, these functions have > reported an error and died. This is what Apache expects, but it is a bad > idea for anybody else. For any new functions, APR reports an error by > returning an error code. Didn't we get a callback in there? In other words, does APR still die, or just Apache (via the callback) die? I would also tend to agree with Ryan: if APR has sufficient/proper return codes, then it shouldn't ever need to log. The caller should do the logging when it is returned an error. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/