@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
Revision history for libev, a high-performance and full-featured event loop.
- include more include files on windows to get struct _stati64
(reported by Chris Hulbert).
- add missing #include <io.h> in ev.c on windows (reported by
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
.IX Title "LIBEV 3"
.TH LIBEV 3 "2008-06-09" "libev-3.42" "libev - high performance full featured event loop"
.TH LIBEV 3 "2008-06-19" "libev-3.43" "libev - high performance full featured event loop"
.\" For nroff, turn off justification. Always turn off hyphenation; it makes
.\" way too many mistakes in technical documents.
.if n .ad l
@ -1799,13 +1799,19 @@ will be no polling.
.IX Subsection "ABI Issues (Largefile Support)"
Libev by default (unless the user overrides this) uses the default
compilation environment, which means that on systems with optionally
disabled large file support, you get the 32 bit version of the stat
compilation environment, which means that on systems with large file
support disabled by default, you get the 32 bit version of the stat
structure. When using the library from programs that change the \s-1ABI\s0 to
use 64 bit file offsets the programs will fail. In that case you have to
compile libev with the same flags to get binary compatibility. This is
obviously the case with any flags that change the \s-1ABI\s0, but the problem is
most noticeably with ev_stat and large file support.
most noticeably disabled with ev_stat and large file support.
The solution for this is to lobby your distribution maker to make large
file interfaces available by default (as e.g. FreeBSD does) and not
optional. Libev cannot simply switch on large file support because it has
to exchange stat structures with application programs compiled using the
default compilation environment.
.IX Subsection "Inotify"
@ -3567,6 +3573,6 @@ Marc Lehmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
.SH "POD ERRORS"
.IX Header "POD ERRORS"
Hey! \fBThe above document had some coding errors, which are explained below:\fR
.IP "Around line 3116:" 4
.IX Item "Around line 3116:"
.IP "Around line 3122:" 4
.IX Item "Around line 3122:"
You forgot a '=back' before '=head2'
@ -3190,8 +3190,9 @@ done serially (but can be done from different threads, as long as only one
thread ever is inside a call at any point in time, e.g. by using a mutex
If you want to know which design is best for your problem, then I cannot
help you but by giving some generic advice:
If you want to know which design (one loop, locking, or multiple loops
without or something else still) is best for your problem, then I cannot
help you. I can give some generic advice however: