On Friday 31 August 2001 22:39, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > rbb 01/08/31 22:10:23
> >
> > Modified: include/arch/win32 threadproc.h
> > threadproc/win32 thread.c
> > Log:
> > Implement apr_thread_once for Windows.
> >
> > +APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_thread_once(apr_thread_once_t *control,
> > + void (*func)(void))
> > +{
> > + InterlockedIncrement(&control->value);
> > + if (control->value == 1) {
> > + func();
> > + }
> > + return APR_SUCCESS;
> > +}
>
> This looks like a possible bug - control->value -could- someday wrap
> (especially if it wasn't called once per thread, but once per some
> operation!) What if we
>
> if (control->value)
> return APR_SUCCESS;
>
> first, which will start null, so several folks might
> fall in (incrementing to perhaps 2, possibly 10, doubtfully 100). But
> everyone hitting that line afterwards gets a fast escape, we're assured it
> was done without the kernel call and without the chance for wrapping.
We could do that. I don't really like the idea of doing one extra if each time
this
is called, but it does save a kernel call. Okay, I'll add it right now. :-)
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
