> From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 December 2001 19:44
> To: dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: APR_POOL_DEBUG and apr_pool_tag()
>
>
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> >"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >&
Jeff Trawick wrote:
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This sounds like good moment to introduce for APR_POOL_TAG.
fine by me...
One of the things that made the original pool code difficult
to maintain was that it had so many different ifdefs for
debugging. I think it would be cleaner to
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This sounds like good moment to introduce for APR_POOL_TAG.
fine by me...
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
"David Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about a similar thing to allow us to tag threads as well? the
> information could be included when spewing out debug information and may be
> useful.
maybe it should be a thread attribute?
This may not be necessary since there is a pointer to the
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> apr_pool_tag() would seem to be very cheap in terms of space and
> time as well as potentially useful for debugging problems in
> production builds.
>
> Does it really need to be noop-ed if APR_POOL_DEBUG isn't defined
18, 2001 5:01 PM
Subject: APR_POOL_DEBUG and apr_pool_tag()
> apr_pool_tag() would seem to be very cheap in terms of space and
> time as well as potentially useful for debugging problems in
> production builds.
>
> Does it really need to be noop-ed if APR_POOL_DEBUG isn't defined?
apr_pool_tag() would seem to be very cheap in terms of space and
time as well as potentially useful for debugging problems in
production builds.
Does it really need to be noop-ed if APR_POOL_DEBUG isn't defined?
I'd like to see it always and I'd like to tweak Apache to use it in
more places.
I se
