From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:31 PM
> I considered this but in the interest of keeping the code squeaky clean, > decided > otherwise. I don't object to your solution, though others might. I can go > either way... And I had considered the apr_global_mutex_t and apr_proc_mutex_t pointers, and the advantage of keeping them unrelated [but figured 95% of possible mistakes would be picked up on another platform.] I could fall either way as well... We can wait and see if others have any comments. Bill > > > > /* Function definitions */ > > @@ -156,6 +158,24 @@ > > * @return apr_pool_t the pool > > */ > > APR_POOL_DECLARE_ACCESSOR(global_mutex); > > + > > +#else > > + > > +/* Some platforms [e.g. Win32] have cross process locks that are truly > > + * global locks, since there isn't the concept of cross-process locks > > + * Define these platforms in terms of an apr_proc_mutex_t. > > + */ > > + > > +#define apr_global_mutex_t apr_proc_mutex_t > > +#define apr_global_mutex_create apr_proc_mutex_create > > +#define apr_global_mutex_child_init apr_proc_mutex_child_init > > +#define apr_global_mutex_lock apr_proc_mutex_lock > > +#define apr_global_mutex_trylock apr_proc_mutex_trylock > > +#define apr_global_mutex_unlock apr_proc_mutex_unlock > > +#define apr_global_mutex_destroy apr_proc_mutex_destroy > > +#define apr_global_mutex_pool_get apr_proc_mutex_pool_get > > + > > +#endif > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > } > > > > > >
