* Brian Pane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > Joe Orton wrote: > > >There are issues with use of asm/atomic.h on Linux: according to the > >kernel gurus here this is a header for internal use of the kernel, > >and shouldn't be used from userspace. > > > >The problems are, if I understand them correctly: > > > >- with newer kernel/glibc combinations (e.g the RHL7.3 beta) this stuff > >really isn't exported to userspace, so they can't be used at all. (this > >is the most serious problem, it prevents APR from building) > > > > Thanks for reporting this. I agree that we need to stop relying on > asm/atomic.h on Linux. > > My only objection to the patch is that it solves the problem by switching > to the mutex-based default implementation on Linux--which defeats the whole > point of the API on one of our most important platforms. I suppose we can > fix that by using inline assembly to generate the atomic operations for the > Linux+gcc+x86 case. > Which is great for the x86 case, but neglects the other 10+ architectures that linux runs on (including things like IA64, HP's PA-RISC, UltraSparc, PowerPC etc). Debian 3.0 is gonna be available (May 1, hopefully) on 11 architectures, and certainly people would expect APR to be able to support all of them the same - are you proposing to keep inline assembler in APR for all these cases?
(apache | 1.3.24-2.1 | alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) Cheers, -Thom -- Thom May -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <aj> *sigh* you'd think a distribution composed of 6000 packages distributed across 13 different architectures (in various stages between pre-alpha and release quality), maintained by 700 amateurs with often conflicting goals who're globally distributed and have rarely met each other -- you'd think a distribution like that would be simpler...
