Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As discussed earlier on new-httpd and [EMAIL PROTECTED], the lock scope
> CROSS_PROCESS is not portable, where LOCKALL is. I've fixed
> that by simply removing CROSS_PROCESS. The scopes we have left use names
> that are overloaded and confusing (LOCKALL vs CROSS_PROCESS huh?)
> so I went ahead and dropped the whole thing in favor of something
> more consistent and disambiguous, the POSIXified names:
Sorry to bring this up again, but today I was showing someone a
program of mine when I realized how dependent it is on the current
CROSS_PROCESS semantics. It won't work with LOCKALL semantics.
(This program shows me which lock mechanisms block out other threads
in the same process. I'd be lost without it :) )
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
