Torsten Foertsch wrote:
> On Thursday 18 October 2007, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>> Any chance you can break the patch into multiple patches
>
> This one registers the cleanup phase with a subpool to ensure it is run
> before
> pnotes are destroyed. Subpools are destroyed first thing in
> apr
Torsten Foertsch wrote:
> On Thursday 18 October 2007, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
>>> The patch contains all my findings so far including the pnotes refcount
>>> problem. Pnotes now lock the interpreter like pools do.
>> Any chance you can break the patch into multiple patches, one for each
>> fea
On Thursday 18 October 2007, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> Any chance you can break the patch into multiple patches
This is the last one of this series of patches. It simply adds the test
perl/ithreads3.
Please apply all these patches in the given order to the threading branch.
The result compi
On Thursday 25 October 2007, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> > It was named after apr_pool_cleanup_kill(). If you don't like it then
> > what do you prefer _destroy or _reset? To me it's all the same.
>
> In that case, yes, pnotes_kill() probably is a bit more consistent.
>
> Of course, after thinkin
