Re: pread solutions needed

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: > Why do we use pread in the first place? I don't know. It looks like we have options for both pread and non-pread capable systems (ext/session/mod_files.c:270). I personally don't see any specific reason to use the HAVE_PREAD version, if we have something that works "universally". > At 21:27 03/09/2002, Dan Kalowsky wrote: > >Please read bug: > > > >http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=15983 > > > >As it states, currently non-i386 Linux boxen are having difficulty with > >the session functionality. Mainly because of the pread/pwrite functions. > >The check passes, and the HAVE_PREAD/HAVE_PWRITE flags are given. > > > >One of the users has discovered that this is actually a bug in the glibc > >implementations on non-i386 machines. There is a message (linked in the > >bug report) that states this has been fixed in CVS as of Tues, 30th July > >2002. So what does the official PHP stance become? Do we want to put a > >series of #defines around this code section to make sure Linux/non-i386 > >doesn't use this code? Or do we just ignore it and wait for the new glibc > >code to filter down? > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------< > >Dan Kalowsky "A little less conversation, > >http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a little more action." > >dank-nom@aps-deadmime.org - "A Little Less Conversation", > >kalowsky@php.net Elvis Presley > > > > > >-- > >PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >---------------------------------------------------------------< Dan Kalowsky "A little less conversation, http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a little more action." dank-nom@aps-deadmime.org - "A Little Less Conversation", kalowsky@php.net Elvis Presley