You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@apr.apache.org by be...@apache.org on 2001/05/19 17:35:45 UTC
cvs commit: apr/memory/unix apr_sms.c
ben 01/05/19 08:35:45
Modified: include apr_sms.h
memory/unix apr_sms.c
Log:
Fix warnings.
Revision Changes Path
1.3 +2 -0 apr/include/apr_sms.h
Index: apr_sms.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/include/apr_sms.h,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- apr_sms.h 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.2
+++ apr_sms.h 2001/05/19 15:35:44 1.3
@@ -312,6 +312,8 @@
*/
APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_sms_std_create(apr_sms_t **mem_sys);
+APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_sms_threadsafe_lock(apr_sms_t *mem_sys);
+APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_sms_threadsafe_unlock(apr_sms_t *mem_sys);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
1.4 +5 -1 apr/memory/unix/apr_sms.c
Index: apr_sms.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/memory/unix/apr_sms.c,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4
--- apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.3
+++ apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 15:35:45 1.4
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
mem_sys->accounting_mem_sys = mem_sys;
if (parent_mem_sys != NULL){
- if (mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys){
+ if ((mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys)){
mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys;
}
mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys;
@@ -498,6 +498,8 @@
if (mem_sys->lock_fn)
return mem_sys->lock_fn(mem_sys);
+
+ return APR_SUCCESS;
}
APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_sms_threadsafe_unlock(apr_sms_t *mem_sys)
@@ -510,6 +512,8 @@
if (mem_sys->unlock_fn)
return mem_sys->unlock_fn(mem_sys);
+
+ return APR_SUCCESS;
}
/*
Re: cvs commit: apr/memory/unix apr_sms.c
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > Just to verify (haven't looked at this section of the code itself yet),
> > assignment IS what's intended here, right? If so, a ((foo = bar) != NULL)
> > might make that more clear.
>
> Good point. I foolishly assumed the assignment was intentional - it
> still looks like it is, but confirmation from someone who knows would be
> good. I agree with != NULL if it is so.
Looking closer, I agree. Confirmation would still be nice, but I
agree that it looks intentional. So I'll go ahead and throw a !=NULL in
there.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: cvs commit: apr/memory/unix apr_sms.c
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> On 19 May 2001 ben@apache.org wrote:
>
> > --- apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.3
> > +++ apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 15:35:45 1.4
> > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > mem_sys->accounting_mem_sys = mem_sys;
> >
> > if (parent_mem_sys != NULL){
> > - if (mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys){
> > + if ((mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys)){
> > mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys;
> > }
> > mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys;
>
> Just to verify (haven't looked at this section of the code itself yet),
> assignment IS what's intended here, right? If so, a ((foo = bar) != NULL)
> might make that more clear.
Good point. I foolishly assumed the assignment was intentional - it
still looks like it is, but confirmation from someone who knows would be
good. I agree with != NULL if it is so.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Re: cvs commit: apr/memory/unix apr_sms.c
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On 19 May 2001 ben@apache.org wrote:
> --- apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.3
> +++ apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 15:35:45 1.4
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> mem_sys->accounting_mem_sys = mem_sys;
>
> if (parent_mem_sys != NULL){
> - if (mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys){
> + if ((mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys)){
> mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys;
> }
> mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys;
Just to verify (haven't looked at this section of the code itself yet),
assignment IS what's intended here, right? If so, a ((foo = bar) != NULL)
might make that more clear.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA