You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2002/04/26 15:32:19 UTC
Atomics in general
Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
delay 2.0.36 if possible.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
I'm more in favour of diabled by default and a switch to enable.
If 2.0.36 does look good then binaries will be required (given we have
binaries for .35) and I'd rather we avoided too many issues. 2.0.37 won't be
far away and maybe we'll have fixed it by then.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Trawick" <tr...@attglobal.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Cc: <de...@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Atomics in general
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
>
> > Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
> > now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
> > compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
> > delay 2.0.36 if possible.
>
> I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
> used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
>
> --
> Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
>
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 12:24 PM -0400 4/26/02, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> writes:
>
>> > +1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
>> > help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
>>
>> Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
>> specify --please-make-my-binaries-portable is not good enough for me. :(
>> Optimizations that narrow the scope of portability must be optional.
>
>I thought this thread was in regards to the compile issues that
>various folks have had on Solaris and Linux, not the binary build
>issue...
>
Yeah, that was the intent of my orig email... 2 separate issues,
but the main for me was the build problems preventing a 2.0.36 from
happening.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
> > Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
> > specify --please-make-my-binaries-portable is not good enough for me. :(
> > Optimizations that narrow the scope of portability must be optional.
>
> I thought this thread was in regards to the compile issues that
> various folks have had on Solaris and Linux, not the binary build
> issue...
I thought it was about both sets of problems, and I'm just
talking about what the default should be for any possible
--enable-atomics/--disable-atomics flags.
-aaron
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> writes:
> > +1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
> > help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
>
> Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
> specify --please-make-my-binaries-portable is not good enough for me. :(
> Optimizations that narrow the scope of portability must be optional.
I thought this thread was in regards to the compile issues that
various folks have had on Solaris and Linux, not the binary build
issue...
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
> +1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
> help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
specify --please-make-my-binaries-portable is not good enough for me. :(
Optimizations that narrow the scope of portability must be optional.
-aaron
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
[dang, I really meant to reply to dev@apr the first time]
> +1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
> help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
specify --please-make-my-binaries-portable is not good enough for me. :(
Optimizations that narrow the scope of portability must be optional.
-aaron
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On 26 Apr 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
> used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
+1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On 26 Apr 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
> used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
+1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
> now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
> compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
> delay 2.0.36 if possible.
I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Atomics in general
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
> now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
> compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
> delay 2.0.36 if possible.
I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...