Re: SET_BYTES_SENT (problem with run_sub_req())

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Robert S. Thau wrote:
> 
> >   The problem is that using run_sub_req() causes a SEGV because
> >   sub->main is not being initialized.
> > 
> > In what circumstances is sub->main not being initialized?
> > (sub_req_lookup_{uri,file} both call sub_req_set_protocol, which
> > initializes sub->main, among many other things).
> 
> I think he's calling run_sub_req() himself, on the main request_rec, with
> some modified members.

Yes. Setting r->handler and then calling run_sub_req(r).


> Random thought:
> 
> r->main = r;

This is my question. Do we do this in run_sub_req, or should this
be done in invoke_handler?