On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Can someone enlighten me as to why we have --with-pthread-cross and we > aren't telling anyone? If we have pthread.h, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED, > and pthread_mutexattr_setpshared, it seems reasonable enough to > define USE_PROC_PTHREAD_SERIALIZE to 1. Or, are pthread_mutex_t not > suitable for cross-process locks for some other reason that we have to > have a manual override? > > Unless someone says otherwise, I'll commit this tonight/tomorrow.
In general, most platforms don't really support cross process pthread mutex's. Even those that have PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED tend to not work properly. For example, AIX has that defined, but they don't really support pthread mutex's cross processes. Ryan > -- justin > > Index: configure.in > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/configure.in,v > retrieving revision 1.321 > diff -u -r1.321 configure.in > --- configure.in 2001/06/28 01:57:02 1.321 > +++ configure.in 2001/06/30 19:52:34 > @@ -955,7 +955,7 @@ > APR_IFALLYES(header:fcntl.h define:F_SETLK, > APR_DECIDE(USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZE, [SVR4-style fcntl()])) > APR_IFALLYES(header:pthread.h define:PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED dnl > - func:pthread_mutexattr_setpshared custom:with_pthread_cross, > + func:pthread_mutexattr_setpshared, > APR_DECIDE(USE_PROC_PTHREAD_SERIALIZE, [pthread mutex])) > if test "x$apr_lock_method" != "x"; then > APR_DECISION_FORCE($apr_lock_method) > > > _____________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
