On 1 Mar 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote: > This will be very useful, especially if the semantics of the list > operations will enable them to be implemented as lock-free operations > for certain platforms. It's the "lock-free operations" part that I've been stumbling over so far. If we were just talking prefork, it'd be trivial... but keeping it thread-safe AND lock-free is quite a challenge. --Cliff
- some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is slower than... Ian Holsman
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is sl... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 thread... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... William A. Rowe, Jr.
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded is sl... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 threaded i... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 thread... Cliff Woolley
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 th... Rodent of Unusual Size
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2... Bill Stoddard
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why Apac... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why ... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why ... Jeff Trawick
- Re: some reasons why ... Greg Stein
- Re: some reasons why ... David Reid
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2.0 th... Ben Laurie
- Re: some reasons why Apache 2... Greg Ames
