On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:22:01PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> I think SMS's use of a wrapper function to do the indirect method
> call was the main problem, which is why we'd have to use a macro
> instead if we reintroduced a function pointer model.
Count me confused, but what is the difference between:
p->alloc
and
#define apr_palloc(...) p->alloc
Aren't they going to resolve to the same thing? Or are you referring
to the fact that we used to have a function like this:
apr_palloc()
{
return p->alloc();
}
IIRC, I did macroize it during my test runs (at one point at least -
I may not have committed it) and found no performance improvement.
The problems seemed to be with the function pointer itself. It's all
a little fuzzy though, so it's possible I didn't macroize.
A better solution, IMHO, would be just to code a drop-in replacement
for memory/unix/apr_pools.c. -- justin
