Re: svn commit: r1790296 - /apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c

2017-04-06 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Apr 6, 2017 3:34 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > On Apr 6, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > > A zero or negative timeout should attempt to instantaneously acquire, and return TIMEUP immediately if that's not possible. Treating negative

Re: header file distribution bug

2017-04-06 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
On 06.04.17 19:32 , Branko Čibej wrote: > These are not APR headers, they're httpd headers. Oops, thank you. My bad. I will post this question/comment in the httpd mailing list then. Cheers, K. C -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek lookup http://sks.pkqs.net for KeyID 0xC11F128D /* Thou

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > brane@zulu:~/src/apr/build/trunk$ grep HAVE_PTHREAD_CONDATTR_SETPSHARED > ./include/arch/unix/apr_private.h > #define HAVE_PTHREAD_CONDATTR_SETPSHARED 1 > > > Looks good? Yes, looks good, the condvar fallback for

Re: header file distribution bug

2017-04-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.04.2017 22:00, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > There is a bug in how APR and APR-util are distributed. > > Some of the typical autotools defines made it into the current packages > and they interfere with one's own build process: > > one example (there are 5 different occurrences): > > In

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.04.2017 21:05, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 06.04.2017 20:49, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: apr-trunk (r1790379): % ./testall -v testprocmutex

Re: svn commit: r1790296 - /apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c

2017-04-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Apr 6, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > > A zero or negative timeout should attempt to instantaneously acquire, and > return TIMEUP immediately if that's not possible. Treating negative values > the same way as zero allows client code to handle

Re: svn commit: r1790296 - /apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c

2017-04-06 Thread Jacob Champion
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In fact, that goes for all, really. All *.timedacquire() impl should return APR_TIMEUP for any timeout < 0. Instead we try to acquire which is against the whole ABI guarantee. If you're trying to match the pthreads API,

header file distribution bug

2017-04-06 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
There is a bug in how APR and APR-util are distributed. Some of the typical autotools defines made it into the current packages and they interfere with one's own build process: one example (there are 5 different occurrences): In file included from /usr/local/apache/include/ap_config.h:138:0,

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
As of HEAD on apr-trunk, all tests pass fine on OSX. Plus: ./include/arch/unix/apr_private.h:#define HAVE_PTHREAD_CONDATTR_SETPSHARED 1 So I'm +1 for backporting to 1.6! > On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 06.04.2017 20:49, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> apr-trunk (r1790379): >>> % ./testall -v testprocmutex >>> testprocmutex : -Line 189: Locks

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.04.2017 20:49, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> apr-trunk (r1790379): >> % ./testall -v testprocmutex >> testprocmutex : -Line 189: Locks don't appear to work with timedlock >> -flock_timedlock() not implemented,/Line

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > apr-trunk (r1790379): > % ./testall -v testprocmutex > testprocmutex : -Line 189: Locks don't appear to work with timedlock > -flock_timedlock() not implemented,/Line 189: Locks don't appear to work > with

Re: svn commit: r1790105 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: locks/unix/misc.c locks/unix/proc_mutex.c locks/unix/thread_mutex.c test/testlock.c

2017-04-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
apr-trunk (r1790379): % ./testall -v testprocmutex testprocmutex : -Line 189: Locks don't appear to work with timedlock -flock_timedlock() not implemented,/Line 189: Locks don't appear to work with timedlock -Line 189: Locks don't appear to work with timedlock -fcntl_timedlock()