serf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.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 16:01:06 GMT
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

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Mime
View raw message