[PATCH] Turn apr_table_t into a hash table

2001-09-07 Thread Brian Pane
The attached patches change the apr_table_t implementation from a linear list to a hash table (not an apr_hash_t, though!). With this change, I'm seeing a ~3% improvement in throughput when delivering a 0-byte file over the loopback on Linux. (I used this 0-byte test case to measure the inherent

Re: FW: /apr.h:265: #error Can not determine the proper size for apr_int64_t

2001-09-07 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > It seems that the latest HEAD cannot compile... Or better, it compiles, but > then I can't compile anything with it... I'm sure I'm doing something > weird... (Will investigate further, this is only a FYI) See if this guy has /usr/i

Re: FW: /apr.h:265: #error Can not determine the proper size for apr_int64_t

2001-09-07 Thread Ian Holsman
Hi Peir. what version of GCC ??? I've seen this before with GCC 2.73 & solaris 2.6/7 On Fri, 2001-09-07 at 08:23, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > It seems that the latest HEAD cannot compile... Or better, it compiles, but > then I can't compile anything with it... I'm sure I'm doing something > weird...

FW: /apr.h:265: #error Can not determine the proper size for apr_int64_t

2001-09-07 Thread Pier Fumagalli
It seems that the latest HEAD cannot compile... Or better, it compiles, but then I can't compile anything with it... I'm sure I'm doing something weird... (Will investigate further, this is only a FYI) Pier -- Forwarded Message > From: Chris Gokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2

Re: Shared memory and IPC

2001-09-07 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 11:50:40AM +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > On 07/09/01, "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The real question is, what *do* you do on failure? One possible > > > protocol: the "master" process does mmap() without MAP_FIXED, reports > > > the address

Re: Shared memory and IPC

2001-09-07 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:17:01AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Wez Furlong] > > So there is no nice-n-easy syscall then? Even a non-portable call > > would be better than parsing /proc/self/maps. > > Don't look at me, I'm no IPC expert! (So, that out of the way...) > > I am not sure wha

Re: Shared memory and IPC

2001-09-07 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wez, as and when you get to this, you're probably going to need some shared-memory management ... 'stuff'. for example, as you mention, a well-known shared list of structures that describe the locations of other shared segments. that being the case, it would be extremely useful to work with san