On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Neil Conwayn...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Bojan Smojverbo...@rexursive.com wrote:
Pools are explicitly thread unsafe, so if you you are doing something to
the same pool from two different threads, you must synchronise using
your
to my question in the documentation;
is apr_pool_t thread safe, and if so, what precautions are needed to
make it so?
Is there any disadvantage in using the apr_pool_t by different threads?
Thanks,
Aleric
Aleric Inglewood aleric.inglew...@gmail.com writes:
I cannot find the answer to my question in the documentation;
is apr_pool_t thread safe, and if so, what precautions are needed to
make it so?
Looking at APR 1.3.4, it appears apr_pool_t is not thread safe. Pools
have a mutex, but it's only
On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:09 +0200, Aleric Inglewood wrote:
Now we have to decide whether to use one APR memory pool per thread or,
to allow multiple thread to use the same apr_pool_t undercertain
circumstances.
This is a cut'n'paste of my own reply from an old thread (no other
committer
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Bojan Smojverbo...@rexursive.com wrote:
Pools are explicitly thread unsafe, so if you you are doing something to
the same pool from two different threads, you must synchronise using
your own mutex.
... except for creating subpools, which is a thread-safe
