serf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [serf-dev] [serf] r2489 committed - In preparation of serf 1.4.0, remove the get_remaining function from t...
Date Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:08:01 GMT
On Sep 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Ivan Zhakov" <ivan@visualsvn.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 September 2015 at 15:08, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [redirected to dev@serf]
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: serf-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:serf-dev@googlegroups.com] On
> >> > Behalf Of serf@googlecode.com
> >> > Sent: maandag 6 april 2015 11:25
> >> > To: serf-dev@googlegroups.com
> >> > Subject: [serf-dev] [serf] r2489 committed - In preparation of serf
> >> 1.4.0,
> >> > remove the get_remaining function from t...
> >> >
> >> > Revision: 2489
> >> > Author:   lieven.govaerts
> >> > Date:     Mon Apr  6 09:24:18 2015 UTC
> >> > Log:      In preparation of serf 1.4.0, remove the get_remaining
function
> >> > from the
> >> > bucket API.
> >> >
> >> > This reverts most of r2008, r2009, r2010 and r2198. From r2008 I
kept the
> >> > read_bucket_v2 function, which is needed for set_config.
> >>
> >> If we still keep the read_bucket_v2 feature, what is the reason for
just
> >> removing get_remaining?
> >>
> >>
> >> We still have to handle the linkage problems if we use the
> >> read_bucket_v2() system for versioning, but we leave out the tests that
> >> were added to find problems caused by different function pointers.
> >>
> >>
> >> The reason we see errors on this feature on several platforms is just
this
> >> linkage problem, while the get_remaining code itself is pretty stable
as
> >> far as I can tell. I'm guessing that the reason for removing the code
is
> >> that we see this errors.
> >>
> >>
> >> Our scons scripts make us link both the static library and shared
library
> >> versions of the same functions, and then a simple pointer comparison
on a
> >> function pointer isn't going to work as expected.
> >>
> >>
> >> And with a shared library build, there are other possible problems:
> >> sometimes you get a pointer to a wrapping function... or the pointer
value
> >> is not guaranteed because the code might be moved under some
circumstances
> >> (unload+load of library)
> >>
> >
> > So you're saying that a pointer to a specific function might have *two*
> > values under Windows? Within a single executable? That A could see a
> > different value from B?
> >
> This is not Windows specific problem, the original problem report was on
Linux:
> "Buckets v2 check doesn't work on Linux in the test suite
> (test_aggregate_buckets fails)" [1]
>
> Bert commented  that serf on Windows had similiar problems, but I
> don't know details.
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SERF-134

That JIRA indicates there are multiple copies of the function, which is
clearly wrong.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message