[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1142191 - in /subversion/branches/svn_mutex/subversion: include/private/ libsvn_fs/ libsvn_fs_fs/ libsvn_subr/

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 23:40:46 +0300

Yeah, in reading the code I see everything is consistent.

r1147314 should make this confusing less likely in the future.

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 22:19:37 +0200:
> On 05.07.2011 00:01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >stefan2_at_apache.org wrote on Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 10:20:57 -0000:
> >>+++ subversion/branches/svn_mutex/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_mutex.c Sat Jul 2 10:20:56 2011
> >>@@ -27,19 +27,19 @@
> >> /* Destructor to be called as part of the pool cleanup procedure. */
> >> static apr_status_t uninit(void *data)
> >> {
> >>- svn_mutex__t *mutex = data;
> >>- mutex->mutex = NULL;
> >>+ svn_mutex__t **mutex = data;
> >>+ *mutex = NULL;
> >>
> >Is this change is correct? Looking at other pool cleanup handlers (eg
> >the ones in libsvn_subr/error.c), their void * argument is an
> >'svn_error_t *', not a pointer-to-pointer...
> Yes, this is "unusual" but correct. We provide
> MUTEX as parameter to the cleanup, which is
> a double pointer (while apr_mutex is only an
> ordinary pointer).
>
> The example you cite (make_error_internal)
> nowhere uses double indirection.
>
> -- Stefan^2.
Received on 2011-07-15 22:41:37 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.