Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > On 08/06/2007 04:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Author: jim > > Date: Mon Aug 6 07:20:24 2007 > > New Revision: 563147 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=563147 > > Log: > > These atomics expect apr_uint32_t *... The expectation, of course, > > is that the add/inc still works "as expected" even though we > > are using signed values. > > Hm. I have a bad feeling here. These atomics are platform specific and seemed > to be designed for unsigned ints. Are we really sure that they can handle > signed ints > as well? Comments from an atomics guru from APR? >
As mentioned in the log, the patch isn't designed to "fix" the fact that we're using a signed 32 bit int with a function (assembly no less!) that expects unsigned. Rather it's to remove a compiler error which complains about it. Ideally, we should craft a different method than idler going negative to reflect the state change, and I have an idea about that. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
