Re: Making proxy "busy" atomic and implement a busy limit
The reason, is that if we can add that to apr-1.7, we don't need to change the struct in httpd ;)
> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, we do check all this via configure... if the platforms supports 64 "native" atomics then we could use those; if not, we could use the portable versions as a backup (or simply return NOTIMPL).
> I don't see how this is different from how we handle atomics currently, but I could be mistaken.
>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Nick Kew <niq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Apologies to Jim. Sent this to him, meant for the dev list of course.
>>>> On 17 Sep 2018, at 14:18, Jim Jagielski <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> FYI: Both clang and GCC support both __sync and __atomic which support 64bit ints. We could add that functionality to APR...
>>> We could indeed.
>>> But does that not potentially leave a nasty gotcha? Where a developer uses it and expects
>>> atomic operations, and their application is subsequently built on a platform that
>>> doesn't support those qualifiers.
>>> With the obvious fallback it breaks silently. With a more sophisticated/heavyweight
>>> fallback, we should consider whether it's maintainable or likely to fall into disrepair.
>>> I wouldn't want to stop you, but it needs some thought.
>>> Nick Kew