On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 02:32:48PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Would it be prudent for APR to provide a shared-memory implementation of
> posix mutexes? It seems to me that we don't have to rely on PROCESS_SHARED
> being available on a particular platform if we handle our own shared
> memory allocation. Are there any known caveats to this type of an
> implementation?
Er, I'm smoking crack here or something. Of course we're already doing
it this way, I just didn't notice before. *smack*
Are there any differences between that and using a SysV shmem
implementation? I'm a relative newbie when it comes to how portable
subsystems like this are.
-aaron
