+---------- On Sep 10, Jerry Asher said: > I'm not sure. It's true that the writer shouldn't just free the table -- I > guess that readers need to refcount it (and unrefcount it), You cannot, in C, atomically modify a reference count in memory. It might be possible to do so from assembler on some platforms, but a portable implementation must use a lock.
- [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Tom Jackson
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Mike Hoegeman
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Jerry Asher
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Jerry Asher
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Rob Mayoff
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share Sean Owen
- Re: [AOLSERVER] nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share carl garland
