On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anybody see problems with this or are we still too worried about > the correct handling of signed vs. unsigned variables by apr_atomic_XXXX > to use this in a non experimental MPM? signed vs unsigned doesn't bother me. However, we should consider the lack of APR native atomic support on various platforms by default. I think we still have to say --enable-nonportable-atomics to get a native compare & swap type operation on x86 + gcc, maybe also on SPARC. But is it rational to worry about supporting 386s with binary distributions in 2008? dunno about the SPARC market. This wasn't a concern for Event because it is experimental. I will take a look at the APR atomics and see if the operations that Event's fdqueue is using are less supported than the atomics used in worker. Greg
