httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manoj Kasichainula <>
Subject Religious discussion #48,523: how to code unimplemented functions
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2000 02:15:43 GMT
Happy, Roy?

On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:25:11AM -0700, wrote:
> I will discuss the APR_ENOTIMPL solution, I will advocate the compile time
> breakage, and I will fight a mixture of the two.

OK, I'm going to propose a slight twist on my earlier proposal. I
think it's a good change, but it could definitely get more confusing,
so I won't push it too hard.

If the function can semantically be implemented on a system, even if
the system doesn't provide a specific function for it, then it would
be best for APR to provide an implementation of it. Here's what I

When writing a thread-safe module, it makes sense to add calls to do
thread locking of shared structures. It's a minor pain though, to code
around these locks on a system without threads.

So look at the semantics here. A thread mutex says "don't let any
other threads touch this code while I'm touching it." The equivalent
of this on a system without threads is a no-op, so it makes 100% sense
to say thread locking is a no-op in this case.

This would apply similarly for shared memory on a system without
per-process memory restrictions (TPF?). Just make it malloc. However,
if you have a system that does protect memory between processes that
doesn't have shmem support, then turn off the feature macro and don't
implement the function.

What do y'all think?

View raw message