Is there a feature macro for cross-process-capable atomics?

2017-06-01 Thread Jacob Champion
Hi all, I'd like to be able to use the apr_atomic primitives for cross-process work in shared memory, but as far as I can see, not every implementation is guaranteed to work across processes (for example, the generic implementation uses apr_thread_mutex*). I'd be fine falling back to a

Re: svn commit: r1797267 - in /apr/apr/branches/1.6.x: CHANGES locks/beos/proc_mutex.c locks/netware/proc_mutex.c locks/os2/proc_mutex.c locks/win32/proc_mutex.c

2017-06-01 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:10 PM, wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Thu Jun 1 21:10:38 2017 > New Revision: 1797267 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1797267=rev > Log: > Partially revert 1738806 (r1733775, r1738791 from trunk), preserve > apr_os_proc_mutex_get_ex|_put_ex,

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

2017-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Greg and others... (Netware, Win32, OS2, BEOS), please have a look > at the attached patch, which should apply to the 1.6.1 candidate. Committed, review on Netware, OS2 and BEOS would still be appreciated, either

lockmech ambiguity (Was: Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?)

2017-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > From an API perspective, the single timeout argument looks consensual. > So there may still be some bug(s) somewhere, which we would fix as > always, but it would unlikely break existing applications since it's > new

Re: [VOTE] Release APR-1.6.1 and APR-UTIL 1.6.0

2017-06-01 Thread Gregg Smith
That works for me on Windows. Thanks. On 5/31/2017 3:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Greg and others... (Netware, Win32, OS2, BEOS), please have a look at the attached patch, which should apply to the 1.6.1 candidate. It suggests several fixes are needed on 1.7.x branch as well, because

Re: lockmech ambiguity (Was: Release _timedlock API in 1.6.x?)

2017-06-01 Thread Yann Ylavic
Hi Bill, On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> From an API perspective, the single timeout argument looks consensual. >> So there may still be some bug(s) somewhere, which