Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200202012028.PAA15608@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: 1.3 weirdness with AcceptMutex on Solaris
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:28:38 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com
In-Reply-To: <m37kpxhsha.fsf@rdu163-40-092.nc.rr.com> from "Jeff Trawick" at
 Feb 01, 2002 03:12:01 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> writes:
> 
> > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > If httpd is linked sans thread libs, then calling these functions should
> > > > always return true, but not actually acomplish anything intended.
> > > 
> > > :-OOO
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure *what* the surprise emoticon is, but I'm ditto. It appears
> > that there are basically null-stubs in libc for various pthread functions.
> > Supremely bogus. First fix would be to always add -lpthread but the
> > what we should really do is test if we are compiling with the PTHREAD mutex
> > and only add then.
> 
> I'm not sure why we'd need to test.  Current code says that if it is
> Solaris then we define HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT.  I changed
> Configure yesterday to unconditionally add -lpthread (it looks to me
> that we get -lthread for free since -lpthread is a wrapper???).
> 

Yeah.... yer right. If they know to disable HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT
then they know to remove the -lpthread... or not to if they want.
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson